ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Town Centres

Paul Burstow: What steps he is taking to support town centres.

Don Foster: Before I reply, I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his recent appointment to the Privy Council.
	The Government have recently announced support to help revitalise more than 300 town centres in England through the town team partners scheme, which is in addition to the 27 Portas pilots that were announced in the summer. Building on this year’s success, we are delighted to announce another “Love your local market” campaign for next May.

Paul Burstow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks and for his answer.
	Our town centres need to adapt to changing times and circumstances, and in particular the fact that we have an ageing society and growing numbers of people who suffer from dementia. The Prime Minister identified dementia as one of the Government’s key priorities, and they are working with the Alzheimer’s Society through the dementia challenge. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that his Department is working with the Alzheimer’s Society to ensure that our town centres are dementia friendly?

Don Foster: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his advocacy of the rights of people with dementia, and on his work in that field. He will be delighted to know that a couple of days ago the Prime Minister received the latest report on this issue, and I can announce that more than 20 cities, towns and villages have already signed up to become more dementia friendly. We are working with a wide range of groups within society, including leading businesses, high street banks and others, to find ways of going still further. For example, Tesco supermarket is training its staff to provide better support for customers with dementia, as are many of our banks.

John Healey: Will the Minister condemn the disruption caused by far-right groups that, twice in the past month, have brought their extreme and racist demonstrations into Rotherham town centre, landing us with a bill of half a million pounds in policing costs and lost trade?

Don Foster: I certainly do condemn that, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. The Department is taking a lot of steps to bring communities together, and we will shortly be announcing further funding for further such measures. The right hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that only a few days ago, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced a further £214,000 for the “TELL MAMA” campaign, which is about reporting acts of anti-Muslim hatred.

Philip Hollobone: People are delighted that Desborough and Kettering town centres are newly designated town-team partners. When might
	they expect to receive the extra funding that goes with that designation?

Don Foster: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign to achieve that success for his constituents. The money available is £10,000, and some of the 300 successful towns have already received those funds. If the cheque is not quite in the post, I assure him that it will be fairly soon.

Tristram Hunt: Are not the Government’s attempts to revive town centres undone by the appalling Growth and Infrastructure Bill which allows major out-of-town retail parks to be designated of national significance? When will we have clear guidance and joined-up thinking on our town centres?

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. The national planning policy framework has a clear “town centre first” policy, and the Department is putting a large amount of funding into measures such as the Portas pilots schemes—and many others—to provide support for our town centres. The Government are supporting town centres, which have experienced real problems given the disastrous situation in which this country’s economy was left.

Audit Commission

Fiona Bruce: What progress his Department has made on developing proposals to reform the Audit Commission.

Brandon Lewis: The Government are abolishing the Audit Commission. I am aware that in the past my hon. Friend has raised cases—and there are others—of where the auditor’s costs have been high in relation to the objections raised. That is why we have included provisions in a draft Bill to make it absolutely clear that the auditor has discretion to reject
	“frivolous, repeated or vexatious objections.”

Fiona Bruce: I am sure that my residents in Swettenham will be relieved to hear the Minister’s reply. Will he confirm that, under the new approach, there will be a role to play for local district auditors in better holding council expenditure to account?

Brandon Lewis: Yes. Importantly, with local district auditors, we have clear, local accountability to ensure that scandals such as Labour-run Corby’s £47 million Cube simply do not go unnoticed by residents.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that the Audit Commission has fine, dedicated staff, many of whom have laboured under the uncertainty of not knowing whether they would have employment in future? What are we doing to look after those very good staff? Is he not aware that local auditors are very often more prone to corruption? How will he deal with that?

Brandon Lewis: That is an extraordinary comment to make about local external auditors, who have already shown local council savings of around 40%, which is part of the savings we can see for local councils, which
	they need to make. I met the new chairman of the Audit Commission recently. He is working with the teams, which are working well, towards the wind-down that will save this country around £650 million.

Unauthorised Development/Illegal Encampments

Andrew Bridgen: What steps he is taking to tackle (a) unauthorised development and (b) illegal encampments.

David Mowat: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the powers of local authorities to deal with illegal Traveller sites.

Eric Pickles: We have renewed councils’ powers to deal with illegal and unauthorised encampments. On 28 August, we sent new guidance to council leaders on how to best use these existing powers. We will also consult on giving councils greater freedom to stop unauthorised development related to caravans.

Andrew Bridgen: Over the past two years, there have been 78 reported incidents of illegal encampments in my constituency. Travellers are telling my local residents that they had better sell their properties to them now, because they will not be able to sell them at all when there is an encampment at the back of the property. That tends to undermine social cohesion in my constituency and people’s belief in the planning system. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will ensure that all parts of our society are dealt with fairly and equally under the planning guidelines?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. It is immensely important to ensure that communities are free from intimidation, and that all communities can safely go about their work in the sure and certain knowledge that the Town and Country Planning Acts treat people the same. That is why we have issued the guidance. There can be absolutely no excuse for any local authority not taking prompt action.

David Mowat: A recent case in Warrington has involved a group of Travellers being repeatedly moved on peacefully using section 77 directions to leave orders, but they move only a few hundred metres and the whole process starts again, costing time and money. Will the Secretary of State consider amending the order, such that people will be required to leave the local authority area and not just that site?

Eric Pickles: It is probably no comfort to my hon. Friend to learn that the number of caravans on unauthorised sites has gone down—in 2007, it was 21%, and it is currently 16%. However, with regard to directions to leave orders, under sections 62A to E of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, unauthorised campers commit an offence if they do not leave when directed to do so, or if they return to the district within three months after being directed, and the police may arrest and detain them.

Right to Buy

Iain Stewart: What steps he is taking to inform social tenants of their right to buy.

Eric Pickles: My Department is bringing right to buy directly to tenants. This month, we are writing to around 100,000 households, including those in Milton Keynes. We have a dedicated website, social media and helpline, and are working with councils to provide specialist events for tenants.

Iain Stewart: Milton Keynes council has produced an excellent guide to right to buy. May I urge my right hon. Friend to share it with other local authorities that, for some reason, might be more reticent about promoting this excellent policy?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend is rightly proud of his council. The website is exemplary, as is the information available to tenants. We are committed to ensuring that people have a clear understanding of right to buy, which offers discounts of up to £75,000. I hope the Local Government Association takes note of that excellent piece of work.

Transitional Council Tax Grant

Dave Watts: When he expects to announce the allocation of the transitional council tax grant to local authorities.

Jenny Chapman: When he expects to announce the allocation of the transitional council tax grant to local authorities.

Yvonne Fovargue: When he expects to announce the allocation of the transitional council tax grant to local authorities.

Brandon Lewis: The Government published on 18 October the grant allocations that local authorities will be able to claim if they comply with the terms of the transitional scheme. These are available on the departmental website. The deadline for claiming the grant is 15 February, and payments will be made by the end of March 2013.

Dave Watts: I thank the Minister for his response, but is he aware that my council, St Helens, will have to make £48 million of cuts over the next three years? The only way it can access the transitional funding and keep council tax down is by cutting services to the most vulnerable members of our community.

Brandon Lewis: I would be very disappointed if the hon. Gentleman’s council were affecting the most vulnerable in the community, as this Government have put in place protections for them, and the guidelines are clear about that. Those who are among the most vulnerable suffered from the doubling of council tax under the previous Government and saw the benefits bill more than double. It is important that councils protect the vulnerable,
	which is why this Government have put the new scheme in place, with the opportunity and the money from the transitional grant, to help them do just that.

Jenny Chapman: I have listened to what the Minister has said, and I have to agree with my council leader, Bill Dixon, that the Government are behaving like a bunch of headless chickens. They have had to introduce a new fund to make up for a policy that was not quite thought through. Why did they not think it through?

Brandon Lewis: Under the previous Government, the council tax benefit bill went from £2 billion to almost £4.5 billion. It is right that this Government are dealing with the deficit that the previous Government left us and sorting out the economic problem. We are letting local authorities deal with what they need to do locally, and we have put in place £100 million to protect the most vulnerable, whom councils such as the hon. Lady’s unfortunately seem to want to hit.

Yvonne Fovargue: Wigan is consulting on a number of proposals, all of which, by necessity, will hit the working poor, people with disabilities, or families with young children. Does the Minister believe that forcing councils such as Wigan to chase people in those vulnerable groups for money that they simply do not have is either fair or a good use of council tax payers’ money?

Brandon Lewis: Again, I hope that the hon. Lady’s authority will do what it is supposed to do and look after the most vulnerable. Instead of attacking the most vulnerable, it should be dealing with its back-office costs, cutting down on fraud and error worth £200 million last year alone, and taking advantage of this Government’s scheme to help the most vulnerable, while still bringing down the benefits bill, which the last Government sent from £2 billion to nearly £4.5 billion.

Amber Rudd: The previous Government made absolutely no provision to continue the area-based grant, which provided important sustenance for communities such as mine in Hastings, so we are grateful that we have got the transitional grant. May I urge the Minister to consider looking carefully at whether councils such as Hastings can make additional efficiencies in order to justify additional access to the transitional grant?

Brandon Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It was a pleasure to meet her, along with council leaders, just last week to discuss the transitional grant, which 12 authorities benefited from last year. We will certainly be looking at the issue she raises, and we will announce details of where we are with the transitional grant after the autumn statement.

Justin Tomlinson: Can the Minister confirm that, despite the pressures left on local government finances by the last Labour Government, pensioners’ council tax support will not be reduced?

Brandon Lewis: Absolutely. I am very happy to confirm that this Government are protecting vulnerable pensioners. Pensioners have saved and worked hard all their lives. They deserve security and dignity in retirement, and this Government are protecting their position.

Charlie Elphicke: May I pay tribute to the work the Minister has done in securing the £100 million fund, and to his energy in protecting coastal town communities and ensuring that the transition works effectively?

Brandon Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Obviously we are doing what we can to ensure that the most vulnerable are well protected. It is just a shame that we have had to do that because so many Labour councils, such as Manchester and those of some hon. Members who have spoken today, have decided to take forward schemes that hit the most vulnerable. It is this Government who are doing their best to ensure they are well protected.

Helen Jones: This is an emergency relief scheme for Tory council candidates, and it is a shambles, is it not? The Secretary of State spent 12 months telling us he wanted local schemes; he has now had to design a national one. Because councils are getting back only a fraction of the money that has been cut, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that it is not possible to design schemes that meet the criteria within the funding available. There is no clarity on whether councils will have to spend more money on consultation, and because the grant lasts for only a year, they will then have to design new schemes and consult on them again for 2014. Meanwhile, at the sharp end, the poorest people in the country are faced with bills that they cannot meet and the threat of being taken to court.

Mr Speaker: Order. We have got the drift of it.

Helen Jones: Would an omnishambles be an improvement on this?

Brandon Lewis: It is amazing that the party that left us with a council tax benefits bill that had more than doubled is now complaining that this Government are trying to sort out the economic mess we inherited. It is very simple: we are talking about a voluntary scheme, and if councils want to take it up, they can. They will have the money in March to help them through the first year and they can then take their schemes forward, but many councils will have structured schemes that protect the vulnerable in the first place. It is a shame that too many Labour councils are trying to affect the most vulnerable. This Government are doing what they can to protect them from badly run Labour councils.

Unitary Local Government

Ben Bradshaw: Whether he plans to implement the proposals by Lord Heseltine for unitary local government.

Eric Pickles: No.

Ben Bradshaw: I have to tell the Secretary of State that my constituents in Exeter will be very disappointed by his reply, not least because one of his first acts in government was to take away their council’s hard-won unitary status. Given that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have described Lord Heseltine’s report as excellent, why does he have such a problem with this particular part of it?

Eric Pickles: It is indeed an excellent report, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the former permanent secretary to the Department, as its accounting officer, washed his hands of the unitary restructuring in Devon, Norfolk and Suffolk, demanding that Labour Ministers direct him to continue. He warned that it would
	“impact adversely on the financial position of the public sector”.
	He said:
	“the evidence for such gains is mixed and representations that you have received provide no evidence to quantify such benefits”.
	He also said:
	“There is every likelihood of such judicial review proceedings being commenced.”
	The system was a complete Horlicks, and that is why we abolished it.

James Gray: My right hon. Friend is right: the diversity of local government in England is very important, and there is no “one size fits all” solution. Does he accept, however, that it was the last Conservative Government who introduced unitary authorities in the first place, and that Wiltshire has been praised by my noble Friend Lord Heseltine for getting rid of five dual-tier district authorities and replacing them with one, thereby saving an enormous amount of money, keeping the council tax frozen, and getting rid of large layers of bureaucracy in the process?

Eric Pickles: I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is at one with his local council. Of course I am not opposed to unitary authorities; what I am opposed to is the imposition on local authorities, from the centre, of costly reorganisations I am urging authorities, particularly small district authorities, to start to work together, to merge not just back-office but front-office functions, and to provide a much better deal for their people.

John Mann: What is the Secretary of State’s problem? Fewer politicians, fewer chief executives, fewer local government press officers—why does he not just get on with it, and actually make some savings that the public will enjoy?

Eric Pickles: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not at one with his local council. I understand his frustration, but all the improvements that he wants—fewer press officers, fewer officials, lower costs—can be achieved by sensible local authorities that merge their front-office and back-office functions, and I for one would very much welcome that.

Adrian Sanders: Notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s answer to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), will he think again about some of the smaller unitary authorities, which experience real difficulties when demands are placed on them in respect of, for example, social care? If just one child requires 24-hour care, that can throw the entire budget out. Will he consider the need for larger unitary authorities?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes my point far more eloquently than I could. The problem was that the restructured authorities—one of which would have been Exeter—were too small. They lacked critical mass, and there was a risk that they would be unable to take the necessary steps. It makes much more sense for larger
	local authorities to deal with matters in a more strategic way, and to work together closely. The days when an authority could rely on having its own chief executive, its own director of social services and its own education director are long gone. Authorities must now look towards merging their functions.

Private Sector Rents (Outer London)

Fiona Mactaggart: What assessment he has made of recent trends in private sector rents in local authority areas close to London; and if he will make a statement.

Don Foster: There is no definitive source of data for rent increases at local authority level. What data we do have show an annual increase of between 0.9% and 3.3% to June 2012 nationally. For Slough, the Valuation Office Agency has published an indicative average rent of £750 over the same period. The figures for neighbouring boroughs range from £650 in Dartford to £1,200 in South Buckinghamshire.

Fiona Mactaggart: I feel tempted to give the Minister a geography lesson, but I will resist the temptation. Is he aware that spending in Slough on emergency housing provision for temporarily homeless people has gone up by 10 times in the last year? The reason for that is not an increase in homelessness; it is because landlords will not accept people who are being paid the local housing allowance rate as they prefer to wait for people being sent from London at higher rents and with premiums. What are Slough and other local authorities on the boundaries of London supposed to do about that?

Don Foster: I think that all hon. Members are aware of that problem, as we all share it in our own constituencies. We are taking steps to address it, however. The hon. Lady should take a look at our latest moves that will make it easier for local authorities to use the privately rented sector. I can say to her that across the country some 30% of private affordable rental accommodation falls within the housing benefit levels, and we have invested £200 million to have more housing built specifically for that purpose. The key is to get more accommodation.

Tony Baldry: Is it not the case that prosperous home counties such as east Berkshire and north Oxfordshire are going to have to use our housing stock as effectively as possible? Will the Minister compliment housing associations such as Sanctuary Housing, which recently got together tenants in under-occupied property where children had grown up but had now left home, and tenants in over-occupied property, to see whether it was possible to arrange swaps so that the housing stock could be used more efficiently?

Don Foster: I welcome what my hon. Friend’s local authority and many others are doing in that regard. We have put in place measures to make sure the limited accommodation that is available is made use of most effectively in precisely the way he describes, but the key is building more affordable housing, and that is what this Government are doing.

Graham Jones: rose —

Karen Buck: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Hyndburn has much to commend it, but it does not form part of a local authority area close to London. I call Karen Buck.

Karen Buck: With private rents in London in particular soaring and driving up homelessness, can the Minister tell us which of the following two statements is consistent with Government policy: the statement by the previous Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), that homeless households should not be uprooted from their local communities and moved hundreds of miles away, or what is actually happening in the seven west London local authorities, who in their homelessness strategy have talked of their aim to manage the movement of households out of London?

Don Foster: There is no evidence that across the board there are rising—or rocketing—rents as the hon. Lady described. Only on Friday we announced measures that will make it easier for local authorities to make use of the privately rented sector. We have also introduced measures to ensure that accommodation is appropriate, taking account of not only the accommodation itself but local facilities, including schools. That will help councils keep people in the local area.

Localism Agenda (Planning Policy)

Philip Davies: What progress he has made on implementing the localism agenda in respect of planning policy.

Nicholas Boles: I am pleased to say that 65% of local authorities have published local plans, and 200 frontrunners of neighbourhood plans are working hard to bring their plans into effect. We are working to revoke, subject to the environmental reports, the regional strategies that the last Government introduced and that were hated so much.

Philip Davies: In Menston in my constituency a local referendum took place. On a 49% turnout, 98% voted against a proposed 300-home development on previously green-belt land. Despite that, Labour and Lib Dem councillors from other parts of the Bradford district came over and voted to impose that development against the wishes of the local community. What is the Minister going to do about that, because until something is done, localism will seem a distant dream to my residents in Menston?

Nicholas Boles: It is fantastic that the people of Menston participate in democracy as vigorously as they do, and I am sure that almost 97% of them voted for my hon. Friend. I urge him to encourage his constituents to explore the possibility of a neighbourhood plan, as such a plan would enable them, rather than people from elsewhere, to determine the future shape of their community.

Bill Esterson: My constituents have their doubts about the ability of neighbourhood plans to protect them. In Formby, a developer is talking about building affordable homes at the price of
	£300,000 on green-belt land in an area that floods. Will the Minister tell me what is in it for my constituents with that kind of proposal for developers, and what on earth happened to localism, because they cannot see any of it in Formby?

Nicholas Boles: What happened to localism is that local plans are coming in at a rate of nearly triple that achieved by the previous Government. We have neighbourhood plans that the previous Government never introduced, but which the hon. Gentleman’s party now claims to support. As a result of those plans, local wishes are being translated into planning policy, where people are willing to take responsibility for their communities.

Harriett Baldwin: The Minister mentioned regional spatial strategies. The West Midlands RSS is proving harder to kill off than the Terminator. Will he please ensure that it appears next on his list for termination?

Nicholas Boles: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are as frustrated as she is by the way the European Court of Justice has put a very large spanner in the works. We are now conducting strategic environmental assessments to get rid of such plans, having created an assessment to bring that in. We have published five environmental reports, and the report for the west midlands will be published very soon. We will look at the results of that report before making a final decision, but our policy to revoke these unwanted, unloved strategies remains firm.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: In the spirit of localism, will the Minister take on board the concerns of the many councils that are against the centrally imposed relaxation of permitted development rights, such as Bromley, whose leader said it would result in an
	“uncontrolled planning free for all”
	and
	“undermine the rights of our residents to voice their views on their surroundings”?
	In light of that, will the Minister allow councils to make their own decisions about whether they want to relax permitted development rights? When can we expect the consultation and why has it been delayed?

Nicholas Boles: Perhaps if the hon. Lady had checked, she would have discovered that the consultation was published an hour ago. Unlike her, I have met with the leader of Bromley council. I explained to him that he retains, as do all local authorities, the right to issue an article 4 direction to set aside a particular permitted development where it is not appropriate for the area that they represent. That has always been the case and will remain the case with these permitted development rights, which are very popular across the country.

Household Waste

Gordon Henderson: What initiatives his Department has put in place to support access by householders to municipal rubbish and recycling centres.

Eric Pickles: We are committed to the principle that householders have access to municipal rubbish and recycling centres where they can deposit waste and recycling without charge. The Department’s £250 million weekly collection support scheme will, where appropriate, support local authorities to invest in infrastructure, including municipal rubbish and recycling centres.

Gordon Henderson: I welcome that statement. Does my right hon. Friend understand that Kent county council is preventing council tax payers from accessing their waste recycling centres if they drive a privately owned pick-up truck, or a car decorated with advertisements for a company of any description? That Soviet-like diktat means that private motorists who possess only a pick-up truck are prevented from disposing of legitimate household waste, as are employees of companies that do not generate trade waste, such as driving school instructors. Does he agree with those policies?

Eric Pickles: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. Up until this point, I had never seen Kent county council as cigar-chomping commies, but I will certainly pass his remarks on to the leader of that council. Councils have a legal duty to provide a civic amenity site for households free of charge for local residents. It is in a council’s interest to offer those services to reduce fly-tipping and increase recycling. We oppose tip taxes. Indeed, it was the previous Government, a Labour-run Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that actively considered introducing charging households as part of their bin tax agenda. We have consigned Labour’s bin tax to the dustbin of history.

Council Tax Relief

Teresa Pearce: What legal advice he has received on whether councils will have to carry out a new consultation process if they adopt a new scheme of council tax relief in order to qualify for the transitional council tax grant.

Brandon Lewis: As the hon. Lady may know, and as has been the practice of previous Administrations, the Government do not confirm or deny whether legal advice has been received on any issue. Whether further consultation is required is a decision for individual local authorities. Each local authority will have to make a judgment, taking into account the scope of its own initial consultation, the scale of any changes required and whether they require further consultation.

Teresa Pearce: Given that the Minister only weeks ago announced transitional relief should local authorities fulfil certain criteria, will he give them more time to consider and consult on the criteria by extending the deadline beyond 31 January, which is the date by which he said he would impose schemes?

Brandon Lewis: We are very determined to ensure that the local authorities applying for funding—bearing in mind that it a simple scheme and that we will take the word of their section 151 officers—will have the money in advance and in full in March, which means a tight
	deadline. However, if local authorities and local authority leaders are looking at improving their scheme, in order to work with the Government’s scheme to protect the most vulnerable, they should challenge their officers over whether they need consultation.

4G Spectrum Revenue

Alex Cunningham: Whether he has had discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on using the revenue received by the Exchequer from the forthcoming auction of the 4G mobile telephone spectrum to fund the building of affordable homes.

Virendra Sharma: If he will estimate the potential number of affordable homes, jobs and apprenticeships that would be created if the revenue from the auction of the 4G mobile telephone spectrum was used to fund an affordable house building programme by his Department.

Stephen Pound: If he will estimate the potential number of affordable homes, jobs and apprenticeships that would be created if the revenue from the auction of the 4G mobile telephone spectrum was used to fund an affordable house building programme by his Department.

Don Foster: As the 4G auction has not yet taken place, we do not know what the total amount of generated revenue will be, but hon. Members should be aware that £600 million has already been allocated from the fund for science and innovation. We are making great progress in the development of affordable housing, and we hope to have 170,000 more affordable homes over the period, with £19.5 billion of investment.

Alex Cunningham: If the Government did the right thing, the cash could pay for 100,000 social and affordable homes, cut homelessness, create nearly 600,000 jobs, make a major contribution to the economic recovery and help rescue Ministers from their appalling house-building record. Will the Minister stand up to the Chancellor and demand the cash?

Don Foster: No, what I will do is ask the hon. Gentleman where he thinks the £2.5 billion will come from, given that Ofcom put out a press release today saying that it expects the amount raised to be in the region of £1.3 billion; remind him that we have already allocated £600 million of the sum; and point out the rather bizarre situation in which the press release to which he refers says that a third of the revenue will be used for affordable rented homes, whereas the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey),on the Labour Front Bench, says that the Labour party is against them.

Virendra Sharma: With the latest affordable housing supply figures showing an across-the-board decrease, does the Minister agree that his Government’s failure to build enough affordable homes and homes for social rent, combined with their economic policies, are fuelling homelessness and rough sleeping?

Don Foster: I am absolutely staggered that the hon. Gentleman asks me that question, bearing in mind that, when his party was in power, 421,000 social houses were lost—became unavailable—whereas the coalition Government are seeking to build 175,000 additional properties.

Stephen Pound: On the subject of being staggered, the House was certainly so when during the previous DCLG questions the Secretary of State compared himself to Bertie Wooster. Whereas the right hon. Gentleman’s aspirations may be to the Drones club and an agreeable weekend in Blandings castle, many of my constituents want no more than a roof, and many of them want a job. The 4G revenue can provide them with both. Why not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said, stand up to those bloodless mandarins in the Treasury and say, “The people come before some fiscal policy”?

Don Foster: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made it clear where he does not want to be: on a bushtucker trial. I was surprised to see the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of admiration, table a take-out question from the Whips Office, and I am disappointed that he has not followed it through with a question that acknowledges the significant contribution that the Government are making to getting a roof over somebody’s head and getting them a job after the mess left by the Labour Government.

Bob Russell: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the previous Government built fewer council houses in 13 years than the Thatcher Government built in 10 years? That said, it is quite a good question—can we not take on board what is being proposed?

Don Foster: My hon. Friend must also look at the figures. We do not yet know what will be available, but £600 million has been allocated. There will still be questions about what will happen to house building in the period after the current spending review, and we are looking at that at the moment. Clearly, we want to have more houses, and more affordable homes. That is what we are already delivering, and we want to deliver more.

Jack Dromey: The Secretary of State knows that millions are locked out of home ownership, that families are struggling to pay ever higher levels of rent in the private rented sector and that council waiting lists are lengthening by the day. Why will he not support the investment of the 4G windfall in a programme that the National Housing Federation has said would result in 100,000 homes being built and more than 500,000 jobs being created? Does he not agree with the director general of the CBI, John Cridland, who has said that that is exactly what the economy needs?

Don Foster: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done more than anyone in this House to get house building going, with the additional money that was announced on 6 September, which will result in a further 10,000 affordable homes and bring a further 5,000 empty homes back into use, and with measures
	involving £200 million to get more privately rented accommodation, additional support for homeless people and so on. My Secretary of State can stand up and be proud of what he has achieved, unlike the Labour Government, who failed people in regard to house building during their 13 years in power.

Metropolitan Fire Services

Jim Cunningham: What consideration his Department has given to the proposal by the Association of Metropolitan Fire and Rescue Authorities for a flat-rate reduction for all fire services.

Brandon Lewis: The Government are considering responses to the technical consultation on business rates retention. All representations, including those from the Association of Metropolitan Fire and Rescue Authorities, will be considered before final decisions are made. Announcements on funding will be made in December in the usual way.

Jim Cunningham: Why are fire authority areas with a higher incident rate, such as the west midlands, suffering the largest cuts per capita? Can the Minister explain that?

Brandon Lewis: As I have just said, the funding decisions will be made in December in the usual way. Some Opposition Members do not support the idea of a flat line for metropolitan funding, and we are looking at that issue at the moment. The metropolitan brigades also have a higher per head grant in the first place, so there is full funding in there. I have already met a fair number of the metropolitan authorities to discuss this matter, and we will make our decisions and announcements in December.

Chris Williamson: The Minister will know that fire and rescue services around the country are increasingly being called on to deal with the impact of severe flooding each year. Many of them, especially the metropolitan authorities, are struggling to meet their statutory obligations as a result of the Government’s swingeing cuts to fire and rescue services. Is the Minister happy to leave people who are affected by flooding this year to their own devices, or will he ensure that funding is available to enable the fire and rescue authorities to carry out that non-statutory function?

Brandon Lewis: I want to update the hon. Gentleman on a matter of fact. He might like to have a look at the figures, which show that the cut for fire authorities last year and the year that we are now in was 0.5%, as opposed to the swingeing cut to which he referred. Those authorities continue to do a fantastic job, as we are seeing. Problem with deaths from fire have fallen quite dramatically over the past few years, and the figures that he is citing simply do not add up.

Unauthorised Development/Illegal Encampments

Damian Hinds: What steps he is taking to tackle (a) unauthorised development and (b) illegal encampments.

Eric Pickles: I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier answer on the problems of Travellers. I certainly look forward to what he has to say.

Damian Hinds: My constituents believe that everyone should be treated equally before the law, and they will welcome the news that councils are to get greater freedom to move quickly to prevent long-drawn-out stalemates such as the one at Dale Farm. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his policy will result in a return to fairness in the planning system, unlike the policies of the Labour Government, which turned a blind eye to unauthorised development?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend is right. Dale Farm was a stain against the reputation of the planning system. We must never allow something like that to happen again. We have gone about this in a systematic way, trying to get a good balance to ensure that funds are readily available for authorities that wish to provide or should provide Traveller sites, but that resources and laws are there to ensure that those who wish to defy the law can be dealt with expeditiously—unlike what happened at Dale Farm.

Neighbourhood Plans

Annette Brooke: What steps he is taking to support the creation of neighbourhood plans.

Nicholas Boles: The Government have committed £50 million until March 2015 to enable local authorities to fulfil their legal duty to support neighbourhood planning. We are also providing direct support to front runners—£3.1 million this year to four organisations supporting neighbourhood plan areas.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his answer. I hear reports of delays in setting up the processes for neighbourhood forums, and I hear that not all planning officers are enthusiastic about neighbourhood plans. What more can the Government do to turn the Localism Act 2011 from a piece of legislation into a real change in culture and practice?

Nicholas Boles: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this to my attention. The fact is that the duty to support neighbourhood planning is the law of the land, and we expect all local authorities and all people who work for them to obey the law of the land. If there is any evidence to the contrary, I look forward to receiving it from her.

Homes for Social Rent (England)

Andrew Stunell: How many homes for social rent have been (a) built and (b) sold in England since 1997.

Don Foster: Before I answer the question, I am sure the whole House would wish to join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his elevation to the Privy Council.
	As I mentioned earlier, the total number of social rented housing stock fell by a staggering 421,000 units from March 1997 to March 2010.

Andrew Stunell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his disarming answer. Many families in my constituency are stuck on the housing waiting list, and their plight has been made much worse by that sale of houses by Labour. Will he please push the Government strongly to increase their social and affordable housing programme to deliver for my constituents in Hazel Grove?

Don Foster: My right hon. Friend can be absolutely assured that the Department and I will continue to press the Treasury, but he will know that we have already delivered the funding for a programme that will deliver 170,000 affordable homes, and that we have recently announced further funds that will increase the number of affordable homes and the number of empty properties that will be brought back into use. I congratulate my right hon. Friend’s own council on receiving nearly £1 million through the new homes bonus, bringing more units back into use. Nearly £2 million, furthermore, awaits his local authority from the Homes and Communities Agency to do more good work.

Topical Questions

Jonathan Ashworth: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Eric Pickles: I would like to congratulate the Right Rev. Justin Welby on his appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury. The Church of England plays a valued and important role in the culture and constitution of our country. The established Church is one of the foundations of the modern British nation. It is entwined with the political liberties and freedoms that the House so jealously guards. This Government value both the role of faith in public life and the spiritual and moral leadership offered by the Church—and we wish the new archbishop well in the coming years.

Jonathan Ashworth: I am sure the Secretary of State will be aware that one consequence of the deep cuts many local authorities are grappling with, such as the £38 million that Leicester is losing, is that many voluntary and community organisations across the country face a deeply uncertain future. Given that this Government are supposedly committed to a big society, is he proud that many voluntary organisations could, because of his cuts, go to the wall?

Eric Pickles: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but you will recall, Mr Speaker, that the Labour party tried to pull this last year, and went deep into voluntary groups, so we introduced our best value guidance, which makes it clear that there is a procedure to go through—and this year there is a right to bid. If I were a voluntary group in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I would be wanting to take over the local authority’s provision—with the money that goes with it.

Simon Hart: Does the Minister agree that we could amend the law to help small businesses by
	reducing the amount of time between a business rate being appealed against and a local authority going after the money?

Brandon Lewis: I understand the concerns of businesses—particularly small businesses—and ratepayers who are waiting for appeals to be settled by the valuation office. My Department is talking to the office, and we expect to resolve more than 400,000 appeals over 24 months to catch up with the backlog. The delay in the revaluation scheme will actually aid that process.

Hilary Benn: After the Secretary of State’s shambolic performance in last week’s debate on the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, it is clear that he cannot even tell his Hackney from his Haringey. Why did he use out-of-date figures in his ministerial correction the following day when naming Haringey as the worst planning authority, when in the year to June, the council that actually had the worst record on deciding major developments within 13 weeks—according to his Department’s figures—was Kensington and Chelsea; or is he just determined to blame a Labour council, as long as it begins with the letter H?

Eric Pickles: This gives me the opportunity to apologise to Hackney. I of course corrected the record at the first available chance, and wrote to the mayor of Hackney apologising. However, it is with regret that I must tell the House that this is by no means an uncommon occasion. Between 2007 and 2010, there were no fewer than 300-odd apologies and corrections, perhaps the most interesting of which—I am sorry that the former local government Minister has gone—was when Labour mistook Newcastle-under-Lyme for Newcastle upon Tyne and handed £10 million across to the former. I am delighted to say that no money changed hands under my mistake.

Hilary Benn: That was all very interesting but there was no answer to my question about performance. Let us turn to another shambles.
	The Secretary of State’s determination to change the protection of our beautiful national parks from intrusive phone masts and telecoms equipment has caused a great deal of concern. He told the House during the debate last week that clause 7 of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill relates “exclusively to broadband”, even though the Bill says no such thing. Will he therefore now commit to introducing an amendment in Committee to make it clear that the authorities will still be able to object to phone masts of any height in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty?

Eric Pickles: Frankly, the right hon. Gentleman should know better. We replied to his question, and it is clear that such changes can take place only through secondary legislation. We have made it absolutely clear that we are only concerned with broadband, so his rather ridiculous posturing concerning 4G—[ Interruption. ] The right hon. Gentleman has become obsessed with 4G. He wants money to be spent on this and spent on that—he should do a bit more work and apply himself a bit more.

Julian Huppert: Cambridge is a rapidly growing city. Its population has grown by some 15,000 in the last 10 years, and more
	building is happening. However, the new Office for National Statistics population model, which incorrectly predicted a population decline in the last census period, continues, unbelievably, to project a decline. What advice can the Minister give me on how to ensure that his Department uses more appropriate population figures, particularly when considering funding?

Brandon Lewis: The local government finance statement for 2013-14 will, as usual, use the most up-to-date and nationally consistent data available—not just the data on population, but all the data we use to inform the settlement. I am very aware from my conversations with the hon. Gentleman that there is real concern about the figures for Cambridge, and I am happy to meet him to see whether we can take the matter forward with the ONS.

Alex Cunningham: The chief fire officer in Cleveland is trying to force through the creation of a mutual-type organisation to deliver the fire service that could, in time, have to compete for the contract. Every firefighter I have spoken to tells me they are against this move and see it as a step towards privatisation. Can the Minister guarantee that any such mutual would not face private sector competition for the contract in future, and tell me whether such an organisation could be created without the backing of the employees who would apparently own it?

Brandon Lewis: I am very disappointed to hear that the hon. Gentleman is against co-operatives and employee ownership. If the fire service does want to go to mutualisation and such a situation does exist, it would be a great thing for the employees to be part of it.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the Minister recognise the frustration of high street traders in Dover and Deal, who have to pay high business rates while charity shops conducting business for profit get a complete exemption? The traders feel that that is an unfair competitive advantage and a distortion of the competitive playing field. Will Ministers examine the rightness and properness of the exemption?

Brandon Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is right that charities receive relief, but we have temporarily doubled small business rate relief, too. That means that approximately a third of a million businesses, including many small independent shops, are currently paying no rates at all. We have also given councils powers to grant their own discounts, and they can use those powers to provide additional relief to other shops on the high street.

Joan Walley: Given that on 1 April next year a 10% cut in council tax benefit will be forced on local councils by the Government, and given the confusion on the transitional funding that could be available to help alleviate that, will the Minister give a clear set of guidance to local authorities, because some have already started consulting and might have to set their budgets before they know what they will be getting?

Brandon Lewis: As I said earlier, the scheme that the Government have put in place is £100 million to help councils that want to help the most vulnerable and to make sure that it pays to work. The schemes that
	councils put in place are a local matter for them. This Government are having to deal with the economic mess we inherited from the previous Government and to get down the bill for council tax benefit, which went from £2 million to nearly £4.5 million under the Labour Government.

Andrew Jones: Constituents of mine, especially those in the Harlow Hill area of Harrogate, have contacted me as they are concerned about over-intensive housing development. Please could the Minister outline what protections there are for residents in the national planning policy framework?

Nicholas Boles: The national planning policy framework makes it clear that local authorities should meet the full objectively assessed housing needs for their area, but that they should choose where exactly that development should take place. The local plan must be consulted on, so my hon. Friend’s constituents in Harlow Hill have every opportunity to put forward their views about any development affecting them.

Richard Burden: Going back to the issue of council tax benefit reduction, will the Minister confirm that Birmingham takes the biggest hit in the country—more than £10 million? The transitional grant will not go anywhere near compensating for that, so does he think that the council tax freeze that he trumpets does not apply to the most vulnerable and that their council tax should increase, or that Birmingham city council should squeeze middle-income earners in Birmingham to compensate?

Brandon Lewis: I hope that Birmingham city council will do the right thing and look at its back-office costs and at cracking down on fraud and error, which were worth about £200 million last year alone. I also hope it will make sure that it follows this Government’s outlined scheme to have a council tax freeze for its residents last year, having had council tax double under the previous Labour Government.

Marcus Jones: Community groups in Galley Common and Whitestone in my constituency are considering forming neighbourhood plans, despite the lack of interest, help or enthusiasm from Labour-controlled Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council. Will the Minister join me in encouraging more communities across my constituency to go ahead to form neighbourhood plans and shape their local area?

Nicholas Boles: I want to do everything to help the people in my hon. Friend’s constituency to adopt a neighbourhood plan, if they can. There is simply no excuse for Labour-controlled Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council resisting or dragging its feet. It is remarkable that Labour’s Front-Bench team claims to support neighbourhood plans but Labour councils just try to get in the way.

Alison McGovern: The ferocity of the Chancellor’s cuts to Wirral council now looks clear, with significant job losses on the horizon. If this was our car factory closing, I would be standing here
	asking the Government to help, but these are the Government’s own cuts, trained on Wirral. So what can the Secretary of State do to help us?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady needs to understand that these cuts have been brought about by the failure of the last Labour Government, by the level of their deficit and by their inattention to the economy. We protected all local authorities last year—we protected them in terms of the income they received—and all the predictions by Opposition Members proved to be just hot air.

Sarah Wollaston: Does the Minister share my concern that councillors are sometimes put off from declining planning permission because of the fear of bearing the full cost of an appeal? Does he agree that that is sometimes acting as a barrier to localism?

Nicholas Boles: I reassure my hon. Friend that if councils go through the proper process of forming policies and a local plan under the NPPF, they have nothing to fear from appeals to the Planning Inspectorate, which upholds the decision of local authorities in 65% of cases and can award costs against applicants who conduct themselves unreasonably in launching such appeals.

Graham Jones: In a recent survey, one in four tenants reported that they had been ripped off by letting agents. Do the Government recognise that and, if so, what are they going to do about it?

Don Foster: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. He will be aware, however, that a number of letting agents have come together to form the safe agent scheme. We urge all people using such agencies to look out for that scheme, which gives an absolute guarantee that the funds are available to provide the necessary support.

Nick de Bois: All the money awarded for the building of a new free school in my constituency should go to benefit our children’s education, so is the Secretary of State surprised to learn that Enfield council is demanding tens of thousands of pounds of that budget for section 106 costs, providing no educational support?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point and I, the planning Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles)—and the Secretary of State for Education are looking into it as a matter of urgency.

Heidi Alexander: The Secretary of State will be aware that Labour-run councils such as Lewisham and Lambeth are accredited living wage employers. In other parts of London, such as Croydon, local campaigns are under way to persuade councils to become living wage employers, too. Does the Secretary of State back those campaigns?

Eric Pickles: Local authority pay and conditions are matters for local authorities.

Andrew Percy: When the Conservatives took control of North Lincolnshire council in 2011, Labour said that 2,000 jobs would be lost. Instead, free car parking has been introduced, the number of apprenticeships has gone up, council tax has been frozen and a community grant scheme has been introduced. May I commend the leadership of North Lincolnshire council and invite the Secretary of State to pay us a visit?

Eric Pickles: I already feel the need to book my ticket to visit that fine council. My hon. Friend’s example clearly illustrates the reality of people dealing with budgets and looking after front-line services; the Opposition are the fantasists.

BBC

Harriet Harman: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the resignation of the director-general of the BBC, George Entwistle, and the situation at the BBC.

Maria Miller: The BBC is a global British institution of huge importance and value to millions of licence fee payers and people all over the world who look on it as an exemplar of independent public service broadcasting. In light of the ongoing crisis, it is crucial that the BBC puts the systems in place to ensure it can continue to make the first-class news and current affairs programmes on which its reputation rests.
	George Entwistle has taken full responsibility for the failings of “Newsnight” in his role as editor-in-chief and it was for that reason he decided to resign yesterday. The circumstances of his departure make it hard to justify the level of severance money that has been agreed. Contractual arrangements are a matter for the BBC Trust, but the Trust also has clear responsibilities to ensure value for money for the licence fee payer. I know that Lord Patten has written to the Chair of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport outlining why the Trust took the decision it did and that letter has been made public. It is right that the Trust should account publicly for its decision and I have repeatedly emphasised the need for full transparency to rebuild public trust.
	Members will know that procedures are now in place to scrutinise the BBC’s decisions in terms of delivering value for money—procedures strengthened by this Government. The National Audit Office is empowered to conduct a value-for-money review of any issue. If it decides to review this decision, I expect that the BBC would co-operate fully.
	The BBC is in the midst of the most serious of crises, and I have made it clear both publicly and privately that the Trust was slow off the mark in responding to the initial crisis over Savile. It is now acting decisively, with three reviews, one of which reported yesterday; the other two are ongoing. It is in the long-term interests of the BBC to have a period of stability in which to see this important work completed.
	In my conversations with Lord Patten, I have been clear that the overall aim of the Trust must be to rebuild the public’s trust in the BBC, and I know that Lord Patten agrees. There are three things that the Trust needs to do to achieve that. First, the immediate task for the BBC must be to address whatever failings there have been in the editorial process, particularly in “Newsnight”, in order to restore public confidence in the BBC. The Trust needs to act swiftly to ensure that the management and leadership issues are resolved, and that the failings cannot be repeated. It is clear from the interim director-general’s interviews today that the BBC is looking seriously at what went wrong, where responsibility lies, and how to address the matter in the long term, and I welcome that.
	Secondly, the Trust must get the right director-general in post, and Lord Patten has indicated that he will do that as soon as possible. Above all, it must get the right
	candidate to stabilise the BBC and drive through the change that is necessary. As I have said, the BBC is a global British institution, and it needs to function effectively.
	Thirdly, in all this, we must not lose sight of the inquiries and what is at the heart of these events. None of the developments in recent days should overshadow the investigations into the alleged horrendous abuse of children in institutions around our country. It is vital that the BBC responds correctly and decisively to the Pollard inquiry on the decision to drop the “Newsnight” item on Savile, and to the Smith inquiry looking at Savile’s abuses and the culture and practices of the BBC.
	The BBC is an independent institution, and its independence is not, and never will be, in question. Ultimately, the only organisation that can restore the public’s trust in the BBC is the BBC itself.

Harriet Harman: I thank the right hon. Lady for that answer. Does she agree that, first and foremost, we need to have in mind the people who suffered the horror of sexual abuse as children? It takes great courage to come forward, and that is something that we must encourage and support them to do. Does she also agree that it was disgraceful that “Newsnight” falsely accused an individual of the sexual abuse of children—a damning accusation that could only have caused him and his family untold distress?
	As the director-general is editor-in-chief and the buck stops with him, it was right for him to resign. George Entwistle is a decent man for whom this has no doubt been a personal tragedy. We have heard what the Secretary of State said about the pay-off, but surely she must agree that the BBC Trust cannot justify a pay-off of double the amount laid down in George Entwistle’s contract. Does she take the view that I do—that George Entwistle should reflect on this and only take that to which he is entitled under his contract?
	Turning to what happens next, the Secretary of State is right that what is needed is a period of stability, so that the Trust can oversee the BBC’s sorting itself out. Does she agree that in the heat of this crisis, there are dangers that we must avoid? We should not trespass on the BBC’s independence. We do not want politicians to meddle with what newspapers write; neither should that happen with the BBC. Does she agree that the next victim of this crisis must not be the independence of the BBC? Does she also agree that while it is imperative that the BBC reinstates professional standards, it is important that the pendulum does not swing so far the other way that the BBC becomes cowed and retreats into risk avoidance?
	The BBC is a loved and trusted institution, but it has enemies waiting to pounce. Will the Secretary of State assure this House that she will stand up to the commercial competitors and political opponents who are lining up to attack and wound the BBC at this moment of crisis? The BBC has made grave mistakes, and must sort them out, but everyone, including we politicians, must keep cool heads and let that happen, so that the BBC can restore trust. That is what the public want, and what the country needs.

Maria Miller: The right hon. and learned Lady called for an urgent question today, so she is very much standing there questioning the BBC. I endorse what she says, as we should let the BBC get on with putting its
	house in order. It is absolutely vital that we have a period of stability to do exactly what she was discussing, to make sure that the BBC can put its house in order, and restore stability to one of our most highly prized national institutions. I hope that she would join me in calling for that period of stability.
	The right hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right that we should not at any point forget why these issues are under review right now—it is because of the sexual abuse of some of the most vulnerable people in society, and she will have noted the comments that I made in my statement. It is absolutely right that she should deplore the actions of those who repeated wrong accusations against people who clearly had absolutely no involvement whatsoever in the dreadful events that related to these problems.
	As for the terms and conditions of those who are leaving the BBC, the right hon. and learned Lady will know that that is very much a matter for the BBC itself. I agree, as I have said, that it is hard to justify the level of payment that has been discussed. It is for Mr Entwistle himself to decide whether it is appropriate to accept that payment. I repeat again to the right hon. and learned Lady, as I said in my opening comments, that the National Audit Office can undertake a value-for-money review of the issues, which is an important thing to note.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am minded to run the exchanges on this question for approximately half an hour, but there is a premium, if I am to accommodate colleagues’ level of interest, on short questions and short answers. Long questions by one colleague will cause another colleague to be deprived of the opportunity to contribute.

Richard Bacon: Given that under the one-off agreement between the Department and the BBC Trust, the Comptroller and Auditor General is unable, without the consent of the BBC Trust, to inquire into the regularity of the £450,000 severance payment to the director-general, would it not make sense to give the NAO unfettered access for its value-for-money audits and place the BBC on the same basis as every other public body?

Maria Miller: I know that my hon. Friend has looked at this issue in great detail. I repeat that the NAO is already empowered to conduct a value-for-money review. He makes an important point that in this day and age people expect all public institutions to be open to the widest possible scrutiny.

Ben Bradshaw: Will the right hon. Lady assure me that neither she nor anyone else in government on Saturday, or before, had any communication with Lord Patten or anyone from the Trust in which they suggested George Entwistle should go?

Maria Miller: Absolutely none.

Rob Wilson: As George Entwistle has been given a huge pay-off to go quietly, is my right hon. Friend at all concerned that the BBC will try to use pay-offs to ensure the silence of those implicated
	in the Savile and “Newsnight” scandals? Will she make it clear to the chairman of the BBC Trust that the BBC must be open about its failings and not use licence fee payers’ money to avoid the corporation’s own embarrassment?

Maria Miller: I can absolutely reassure my hon. Friend that I have received assurances that both current and former employees are expected to contribute fully to all the investigations and that they should be conducted in an open and transparent manner.

Gerald Kaufman: Does not this sorry episode illustrate the folly of entrusting the regulation of the BBC to a neutered body presided over by passé politicians from both parties who act in cosy collusion with the BBC, when what the BBC needs is proper regulation—an independent body, but properly and appropriately regulated?

Maria Miller: The right hon. Gentleman makes a colourful intervention. I remind him gently that it was his party that put in place the present structure. We will make sure that in the long term we have a structure that can protect what I have already said is one of our iconic national institutions.

John Leech: I welcome the Secretary of State’s opening comments. The recent catalogue of senior management failings has given the BBC’s opponents the ammunition to attack what is, for the most part, a great broadcasting institution. So does the right hon. Lady agree that the decision to award a pay-off worth twice the amount of the contract gives the BBC’s opponents a green light to maintain their attack, rather than giving the BBC an opportunity to learn from its mistakes?

Maria Miller: It is right to say that it is difficult to justify the level of payment that has been talked about. I hope that the level of concern about that is being noted by the BBC Trust and, indeed, by Mr Entwistle himself.

Ann Clwyd: I agree with both Front-Bench speakers that the main focus should be on the abuse of the children in north Wales. There is a danger of intimidating the BBC. May I give the House a quick example? On Thursday I was interviewed by BBC Wales about child abuse. I mentioned the role of the Welsh Office and the fact that the Welsh Office had known for a period of 20 years that this abuse was going on. I mentioned the fact that there was a convicted paedophile who had worked at the Welsh Office in a senior position, responsible for children’s services. The next day I did a similar interview and I was asked not to mention that person—I had not mentioned the person by name, anyway. I asked why not, and I was told, “That person might be identified because there were a small number of people.” He had already been identified; he was a convicted paedophile. So it is dangerous also that the BBC might now feel intimidated about broadcasting matters which it should broadcast.

Maria Miller: I understand the right hon. Lady’s point, although I say firmly that there are many lessons to be learned from the current situation. One of them is
	that it is in no way sensible to name individuals without there having been a proper and thorough criminal investigation associated with it.

John Redwood: Will the Secretary of State speak up for licence payers and ask Lord Patten, when she next talks to him, whether he will reconsider the outrageous and over-the-top pay-off and what he intends to do about the excessive number of highly paid managers, which he now condemns as if he were a critic, rather than their boss?

Maria Miller: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. He will know that we have frozen the licence fee, and I am sure he will know that I have made my views very clear to Lord Patten on this matter.

Dennis Skinner: When Lord Patten talked about the retirement of George Entwistle, he went on to say that he had acted with honour, bravery, and courage. What kind of bravery and courage does it take to leave office with a million quid?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman makes his own point. I am concerned about making sure that the Trust is doing everything it can to bring the current situation to order, and to make sure that the licence fee payers are getting the sort of value for money that they would expect from a national institution.

Julian Lewis: Who appointed the obviously ineffectual Mr Entwistle as director-general, and what does that choice say about the competence of the people who made it?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend will know that the director-general of the BBC is appointed by the BBC Trust, and Mr Entwistle was appointed by the Trust on a unanimous basis. What is important now is that we have a new director-general in place who can tackle some real and important issues and a very serious crisis facing the organisation.

Pete Wishart: The Secretary of State will know that there is great concern in Scotland about the crisis at the BBC, although BBC Scotland had no role in it. Does she agree with the National Union of Journalists and others who suggest that the job cuts to front-line journalistic staff have at least a part to play in this? May we have a moratorium on such job cuts until the crisis is resolved?

Maria Miller: I think that the hon. Gentleman would have to agree that the problem we face is a structural one within the BBC organisation. It is a problem that the BBC Trust is addressing through the plans and reviews it has put in place, and I hope that he will join me in welcoming that as the right way forward.

Tim Loughton: In the past few days the main news headlines have been about structural overhaul at the BBC, heads rolling and severance payments, yet in the same few days we have heard about further arrests in connection with Savile and with child sexual exploitation in Rochdale and
	Leeds that have hardly troubled the headlines. The Secretary of State is right to say that the origins of all this mess are the inquiries into Savile and child abuse under the BBC’s roof. Does she agree that sensationalist celebrity scalp hunting by Opposition Members and shoddy reporting by “Newsnight” have undermined the possibility that witnesses will come back and that we need to get the inquiry back on track and focused on child abuse, which is where it started and where it should end?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. We cannot let these debates fog the central question: how do we ensure that we protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society? I welcome the fact that there will be a Back-Bench debate on that tomorrow, when I am sure he will continue to contribute and make the excellent points he has made this afternoon.

Paul Farrelly: The tragic case of Madeleine McCann shows that newspaper editors can make the most appalling allegations without having to resign or being sacked by their proprietors, so we should bring some perspective to George Entwistle’s departure, whether it was truly voluntary or whether he was pushed. Does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC Trust has compounded all the errors by agreeing to this misjudged double pay-off and, in so doing, has made it doubly difficult for even the friends of the BBC, and there are many, to stand up for it?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman is right that the level of pay-off will not be easy for Members in the Chamber to understand and that it is difficult to justify. However, I hope that he will agree that at this point we need to ensure that the BBC has a period of stability so that it can proceed with the reviews it has undertaken and we can create the sort of change that will strengthen the organisation for the long term.

Therese Coffey: The BBC is bigger than “Newsnight”, which is one programme, and what happened is terrible, but does the Secretary of State agree that we should allow Tim Davie, who has already shown clear leadership today, some time to get the BBC back on track so that it can finish those inquiries?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have seen the BBC set up the reviews, and we now need to ensure that it can conduct its work and that the findings are acted upon.

David Lammy: This has clearly been a dark time for the BBC, but does the Secretary of State recognise that last week it covered the American elections and that there was a range of programming on television and radio of an incredible standard and that this should not be used as a tool to undermine the basis of a public broadcaster?

Maria Miller: The right hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the incredibly important contribution the BBC makes. We saw that through the summer with its coverage of the Olympics. We must also ensure that the changes
	that are being made allow continued support for the sort of investigative journalism that is a critical part of its role.

Stephen Gilbert: Yesterday our nation gathered to mourn our war dead, Israeli forces exchanged fire with forces in Syria and there was the small matter of an election in China. Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the interminable introspection the BBC is going through at the moment and agree that we need to put these events in perspective and focus on the real issue, which is uncovering child abuse?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman is right that we should not let these matters cloud the central issue of child abuse. Equally, it is vital that we ensure that our country’s main news broadcaster has the sort of management and editorial controls in place to ensure trust in the work it does.

David Anderson: Over the weekend allegations were made that an abuser in the north Wales case had previously abused children in my constituency in the 1960s and ’70s. As other Members have said, we must ensure that it is those people we focus on and that we put as much effort, if not more, into ensuring that proper resources go into encouraging victims of abuse to come forward. That might well mean that the Government will have to look at giving further support to social services departments and the police, because those people will not just feel frightened and apprehensive; they might have spent a lifetime feeling that in some way they are guilty. They need a lot of support, and we should give it to them.

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on it when he says that the important issue that comes out of this is that people who have suffered abuse do not in any way feel impeded in coming forward for fear of being part of what has become a media circus. We have to make sure that people have the confidence to be able to do that, and he is right to make sure that we focus on it. Perhaps he will contribute to tomorrow’s Back-Bench debate as well.

Mark Pritchard: May I assure Labour Members that many Members of Parliament on the Government Benches think that the BBC is a great and fantastic global news organisation? Indeed, I love the BBC, not least BBC Radio Shropshire. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is absolutely vital that the new director-general is the right person for the job and that the Trust does not, in a panic and in a crisis, rush to judgment about putting someone in but ensures that we get the right person to lead this wonderful organisation forward into the rest of the century?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the work of local BBC stations and organisations; we all know that they do a fantastic job of work in our constituencies. He is also right to say that we need to ensure that we have in the new director-general somebody who is able to deal with the real structural changes that are required in the organisation, as already outlined by the chairman of the Trust.

Tom Harris: This is certainly the worst crisis that the BBC has faced for at least nine years. Does the Secretary of State agree that if the editorial policy of the BBC is in need of review, then that review must be done by independent professional journalists and not by middle managers or by Government Ministers, and certainly not by Members of the House of Lords?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman will know that the two reviews on the BBC that are still ongoing are being conducted by individuals not only with extensive experience in journalism, in the case of Mr Pollard, but of absolutely the highest standard and the highest integrity in the case of Janet Smith. He can therefore be assured that those investigations will be conducted in the most appropriate way possible.

Philip Davies: Lord Patten wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds on the appointment process for George Entwistle, and he has now wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds on paying him off, saying that he was not up to the job, that he was overwhelmed by it, and that he was right to resign. Lord Patten has been asleep at the wheel, he has been off the pace from the word go, and he is part of the problem rather than the solution. Is it not time that the Secretary of State tapped him on the shoulder and told him to move aside and manage all his other outside interests, which are probably why he has been treating this as a sinecure post and has done absolutely nothing to earn the staggering salary that he gets?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend’s strength of feeling is clear. While, as I said, the Trust could have acted more quickly with the initial inquiries, I now feel that it is acting decisively to address this very serious crisis. Lord Patten has a key role in ensuring that the crisis is well handled, and I support him in doing that.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Genuine supporters of the BBC will be appalled whenever it slips from the very highest standard of integrity and quality because we expect it domestically and worldwide to achieve that gold standard. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the detractors who seek to make mileage out of this predicament will not be given free rein, because we need the BBC to be there investigating, with the strongest possible standards, the child abuse that is at the centre of this issue?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman will know that the way to restore the trust in the BBC that both he and I want to see is by allowing it to proceed with the investigations currently under way and by having a period of stability within the organisation.

Tony Baldry: Is not one of the lessons that we need to learn that all of us in this place need to be very careful that we do not use parliamentary privilege simply to stand up stories for journalists outside? Is not one of the sad facts, as events have unfurled and unfolded, that some journalists and, I am afraid, some parliamentarians were so keen to have a crack at the previous Thatcher Government by way of association and innuendo that they made no, or no reasonable, effort to check the accuracy of their assertions and accusations?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right: there are individuals who perhaps want to examine their consciences and ensure that, where appropriate, they apologise.

Alison Seabeck: There are two strands to today’s discussion—that it is vital that the victims of abuse feel confident that if they come forward their cases will be considered, and that the BBC, whether it be local radio, drama or children’s programmes, is a national treasure. Can the Secretary of State say with confidence that she feels that the Trust fully understands that, apart from changing personnel, there is an issue around the ethos of the BBC that needs serious consideration, including the messages sent to the public about the golden goodbyes?

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady is right to ensure that we always keep to the fore the situation of children who have been victims of abuse. I am sure she has read Lord Patten’s words that he fully understands the issue with the ethos of the organisation—something that he made clear when he was appointed.

Shailesh Vara: As a result of George Entwistle going there might be other departures from the BBC because of the present crisis. If so, will the Secretary of State assure the House that she will press Lord Patten to ensure that not only the notice provisions of individuals’ contracts but the clauses that speak of proper performance of their duties are looked at; and that if payments are made proper consideration will be given to what, if any, performance there has been?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend speaks of ensuring that contracts are correctly put together. I join him in saying that any reward for failure is inappropriate not only for the BBC but for any organisation.

Susan Elan Jones: Last week, the Children’s Commissioner for Wales made it clear he had had some contact with members of the public who had been abused in children’s homes in north Wales but had not come forward before. I am sure we welcome people feeling that they can do so, but many of us fear that certain events will make them nervous, especially given the current media reaction. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is spectacularly unhelpful when people who should know better refer to such people as “weirdos”?

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady talks about the language we use, and in this place we know it is incredibly powerful. She rightly counsels caution and I share her desire that individuals should be able to raise such issues in the most supportive environment possible.

Richard Fuller: Twice in the past 12 months the House has discussed the lack of management control over large media organisations—now the BBC and earlier News International—led by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), who I see is not in his place today. Will my right hon. Friend say whether this raises issues about revising the roles of the BBC so that it can focus on doing right those things it does best?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the importance of focusing the BBC. I hope that at the heart of the review we will have the opportunity to ensure that we get back to doing what the BBC does best—world-class broadcasting and world-class news journalism.

Bill Esterson: Will the Secretary of State ensure there is no witch hunt at the BBC? Does she agree that the priorities must be a combination of justice for the victims of the now well-documented abuse and of lessons being learned for now and for the future so that children’s protection is always at the heart of what we do?

Maria Miller: Management of the current situation is very much for members of the BBC executive. I see day in, day out their desire to get to the bottom of the issues, which I have encouraged them to do rather than look for any easy way out. The hon. Gentleman is right that we must ensure that we put the safeguarding of children at the heart of what the not only the BBC but every public organisation does.

Lee Scott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, even after the shoddy journalism we have seen at the BBC, the most important thing is getting to the bottom of who perpetrated those crimes and ensuring that the police are allowed to get on and do their job? That journalism should not cloud the situation or do anything to stop the police.

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right that our focus needs to be on the welfare and safety of children, and on ensuring that the dreadful events we have heard about could never happen again.

Paul Flynn: The BBC foolishly cut spending on its high-quality, in-house investigative journalism, and contracted it to outside bodies in order to spend excessively on salaries for managers and stars. Is it not true that the situation is serious for the BBC, but ephemeral, and that the nation’s trust in the BBC is deeply rooted and permanent?

Maria Miller: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the structure of the BBC is a matter for the executive. However, he is right that a review is looking at that structure to ensure that it works effectively in terms of both management and editorial content.

David Nuttall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this latest debacle will bring forward the day when the British public will have the freedom to decide whether to pay to watch the BBC, rather than being forced to pay for it by the criminal law?

Maria Miller: Every Member in the Chamber attaches enormous value to the role of the BBC. All those things are regularly under review as part of the charter renewal process. I am sure my hon. Friend will want to give his thoughts as we move forward to that.

Jim Cunningham: Given that the BBC Trust appointed the BBC director-general in the first place and that he has had to resign, does the
	Secretary of State agree that there is a case for looking at the Trust and its composition?

Maria Miller: The role of the Trust is to ensure that the BBC executive works as it should. We will always work closely with Lord Patten on that. At this point, we want to ensure that there is a period of stability in which we can see the outcomes of the reviews that have been put in place. They may well raise the sorts of issues the hon. Gentleman raises.

Bob Russell: The BBC, across local radio, regional television and national broadcasting, is more accurate and reliable, and better trusted, than Britain’s newspapers, particularly those with foreign owners who have a vested interest in, and commercial reasons for, wanting to damage the BBC. Will the Secretary of State give me an assurance that the failings will not be used as an excuse to dismantle a great British institution that is the envy of the free world?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman is right that a mixed media in this country is important—both broadcast and press have an important role to play. He can have an assurance today that the Government, working in support of the Trust, are trying to ensure that the BBC goes back to being a global player in terms of highly respected journalism, including investigative journalism.

John Mann: How can the BBC move on unless and until Lord Patten is sacked?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman wants to ensure that the BBC can move on from the situation it is in today, but perhaps he needs to join me in looking at the outcome of the three ongoing reviews before he calls for further changes.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am keen to accommodate remaining colleagues as there is but a sprinkling of them.

Gareth Johnson: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Johnson, you can take your seat and be comfortable. Brevity would assist us in this process. You can rise again now.

Gareth Johnson: There is no doubt that “Newsnight” broadcast a car crash of a television programme or that changes are needed at the BBC, but does the Secretary of State agree that it would be a mistake to use the problems emanating from that “Newsnight” programme and the current difficulties at the BBC to rubbish everything it does and all it stands for?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend says that it is important to value the wide cross-section of things that the BBC does. He is right to do that, but it is also right to ensure that such an important institution in this country has the right management structures in place for people to have full confidence in it.

Peter Bone: Is not the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) right? Has not the problem at the BBC been going on for a long time, and has not the wrong person been forced out? Should it not have been the chairman of the Trust?

Maria Miller: I think my hon. Friend would have to agree that what we want now is a solution to the situation we are in. It is clear to me that we need to look at the factual evidence coming out of the reports that have already been commissioned. That is the most important thing we can be doing here and now.

Glyn Davies: The BBC is an institution of world renown that is respected in every corner of our world. Of course when there is failure and wasteful pay-offs they must be acknowledged, apologised for and put right; but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is much in the British national interest that the current crisis should be dealt with in a reasoned, balanced and proportionate way, without inflicting long-term damage on the BBC?

Maria Miller: Absolutely yes.

Jason McCartney: It is clear that a great number of people are busy grinding their axe on this issue. I personally hope that the BBC can get back to doing what it does best: quality programming and world-leading journalism. However, so that more funds from the licence fee payers are not diverted away from that and so they do not have to pay twice, will my right hon. Friend join me in suggesting that some of the outgoing director-general’s pay-off could be set aside for—I would not want to prejudge anything—any future payments that might have to be made?

Maria Miller: All these are things that I am sure the Trust and the executive will be looking at.

Alec Shelbrooke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that quite frankly the BBC has shown itself always to be in contempt of this place? I remember when we first came here we had several debates about a lack of funding for local radio because of the freeze in the licence fee, yet Jeremy Paxman himself said yesterday that too much money is being put into middle management and not journalism. Will she ensure that the BBC gets back to doing journalism, rather than trying to beat the Government with a stick all the time?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend says that we need to ensure that the BBC acknowledges the role of Parliament. I am sure that is absolutely right, although I am sure that we cannot stop the BBC occasionally wanting to ensure that it holds us to account as well.

Neil Carmichael: We all want a respected and independent BBC, so does the Secretary of State agree that although stability is important, so too would be change in middle management and editorial control?

Maria Miller: All these things are being looked at by the BBC in its overhaul of the way it works. I would urge Members to look at the important reviews being undertaken and ensure that when they are brought forward, we look at them in detail.

Sarah Wollaston: I hope that “Newsnight” is back tonight, slowly turning politicians on the spit; but although the BBC can be held accountable in a court of law for its outrageous and devastating slur against an innocent man, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) cannot. Does the Secretary of State agree that he should have been here this afternoon to make an apology?

Maria Miller: I am sure these are things for the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) to think about himself, but I fully understand the point my hon. Friend makes.

David Morris: A lot has been said in recent weeks about pay at the BBC, but anybody who has ever tried to ask a question about the BBC at the Table Office will know that it is near enough impossible. In the collegiate spirit of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), does the Secretary of State not think it time to reform some of the BBC’s archaic ways and allow Members of this House to find out exactly what is going there, so that perhaps a lot of the debacles we have seen over the past few weeks will not happen again?

Maria Miller: The ability to scrutinise the BBC has been strengthened under this Government; my hon. Friend asks whether we should go further. Clearly all of us in public office—indeed, all public institutions—have transparency and scrutiny as our everyday business, and I think that goes for every single public organisation.

Justin Tomlinson: If other media sources mess up, we can stop paying or switch off, forcing them to change. However, in the case of the BBC we must continue to pay. When will that change?

Maria Miller: I am sure that that will always be an issue to be raised in the Chamber, and we obviously consider it when the time comes for the charter to be reviewed.

Philip Hollobone: Licence fee payers in Kettering and, indeed, throughout the country face a criminal sanction if they fail to buy their television licences. Is it not clear that the BBC is being far too liberal with licence fee payers’ money, whether it is spent on low-tax contracts for overpaid presenters or the awarding of twice the amount of severance pay that should be awarded? Given that Lord Patten, as chairman of the Trust, has presided over the appointment of a clearly unsuitable person and then presided over his departure with twice the severance pay that he should have received, is it not time for the chairman himself to go?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that it should be possible to hold every public organisation to account for the way in which it uses money. I remind him that the National Audit Office is empowered to examine value-for-money issues of that kind. However, I think that at this point it should be possible for there to be a period of calm within the BBC, so that it can establish the facts and the problems that it faces and introduce meaningful reforms.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Secretary of State and colleagues for their co-operation, which meant that every Member who wanted to take part in that series of exchanges was able to do so.

Abu Qatada

Theresa May: With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement about a court ruling on Abu Qatada.
	Earlier today, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission upheld Abu Qatada’s appeal against his deportation. I hardly need to tell the House that the Government strongly disagree with that ruling. Qatada is a dangerous man, a suspected terrorist who is accused of serious crimes in his home country of Jordan. The British Government have obtained from the Jordanian Government assurances not just in relation to the treatment of Qatada himself, but about the quality of the legal processes that would be followed throughout his trial. We will therefore seek leave to appeal against today’s decision.
	It is important to note that SIAC ruled that the Jordanian Government
	“will do everything within their power to ensure that a retrial is fair.”
	The court said that
	“the Jordanian judiciary, like their executive counterparts, are determined to ensure that the appellant will receive, and be seen to receive, a fair retrial.”
	SIAC also said that
	“if the only question which we had to answer was whether or not, in a general sense, the appellant would be subjected to a flagrantly unfair retrial in Jordan, our unhesitating answer would be that he would not.”
	Those words demonstrate the extent of the co-operation between the Jordanian and British Governments in the assurances that we received.
	The House will remember the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in January that Qatada could not be deported because of the risk that evidence obtained through the alleged mistreatment of two co-defendants from previous trials might be used in a new trial. I still believe that that ruling was wrong, but since then the Jordanian Government have provided the British Government with further specific assurances and information about the quality of any trial that Qatada will face, and the assurances directly address the issues raised by the European Court.
	First, the state security court, which would hear Qatada’s case, is not a quasi-military court, as Strasbourg suggested, but a legitimate part of the Jordanian legal system that considers criminal cases. Moreover, the Jordanian Government have promised to ensure that Qatada’s case would be heard by civilian, not military, judges.
	Secondly, on his return to Jordan, Qatada’s conviction in absentia would be quashed. He would be detained in a civilian detention centre, open to international inspection; he would have access to defence lawyers, who would be present during any questioning; and he would have the opportunity to make a fresh statement on his involvement in these cases.
	Thirdly, while Qatada’s co-defendants from previous trials would be compelled to give evidence, they are both now free men, so we can be confident that they would give truthful testimony. SIAC also agreed that
	Qatada’s lawyers would be able to cross-examine those men during his trial. The Jordanian expert witness told SIAC that their evidence would anyway no longer be admissible, although the absence of case law and other witness statements meant that SIAC could not be sure that that was the position.
	In addition, torture has been illegal in Jordan since 2006, and last year the Jordanian constitution was amended to make it clear that not only is torture forbidden, but
	“any statement extracted from a person under duress...or the threat thereof shall neither be taken into consideration or relied on.”
	That is a direct quotation from article 8.2 of the Jordanian constitution.
	Despite these assurances, despite the determination of the Jordanian Government and judiciary to allow Qatada a fair trial, despite the change to the Jordanian constitution that expressly prohibits torture and the use of evidence obtained by torture, in the absence of clear case law, Mr Justice Mitting still found in Qatada’s favour. In doing so, we believe he applied the wrong legal test. But as a result of that decision, Mr Justice Mitting has also ruled that, from tomorrow, Qatada will be granted bail, subject to a 16-hour curfew. In addition, Government lawyers are arguing for the most restrictive bail conditions possible, and those conditions will be published by the court in the morning.
	It is deeply unsatisfactory that Abu Qatada has not already been deported to Jordan. Successive Governments have tried to remove him since December 2001. He has a long-standing association with al-Qaeda. British courts have found that he
	“provides a religious justification for acts of violence and terror.”
	In Jordan, he has been tried and found guilty in absentia of planning to attack western and Israeli targets.
	It is also deeply unsatisfactory that the European Court of Human Rights continues to move the goalposts for Governments trying to deport dangerous foreign nationals. The Court has long-standing case law in relation to article 3 of the European convention prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, and successive British Governments have secured deportation with assurance agreements with other Governments, so deportations can proceed in accordance with the law, but the Court’s unprecedented ruling in January in relation to article 6—the right to a fair trial—has added yet another barrier to deportation.
	Notwithstanding the fact that I still believe that the European Court’s ruling was wrong, I also believe that we have obtained from the Jordanian Government the information and assurances that would allow us to deport Qatada in compliance with that ruling and the law. That is why we disagree with today’s decision, and that is why we are seeking leave to appeal. The Government have been doing everything we can to get rid of Abu Qatada, and we will continue to do so. I commend this statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: This is an extremely serious and worrying judgment that means that, from tomorrow, Abu Qatada will be back on Britain’s streets. People across this country will be horrified to learn that that is the case. It also completely
	contradicts the Home Secretary’s assurances to this House that she had the right legal strategy and evidence to get Abu Qatada deported to Jordan. The information from security experts, the Home Secretary and judges and the courts is that this is an extremely dangerous extremist who is a threat to national security. We all want him to be deported to stand fair trial abroad as soon as possible, and to be held in custody in the meantime to keep people safe.
	The Home Secretary is right to appeal against this judgment as every avenue to secure Abu Qatada’s deportation must be pursued. However, there are some very serious questions that now need to be answered about the Home Secretary’s strategy to get this deportation in place and about the action she is now taking to keep the public safe.
	The Home Secretary told us in April that the best way to deport Abu Qatada was not to appeal against the European Court judgment, but to rely on evidence from Jordan in the British immigration courts, and she gave very strong assurances to Parliament and the public that Abu Qatada would be quickly removed from this country. In April she told us that
	“today Qatada has been arrested and the deportation is under way.”
	She said:
	“I am confident of our eventual success”
	and
	“I believe that the assurances and the information that we have gathered will mean that we can soon put Qatada on a plane and get him out of our country for good.”—[Official Report, 17 April 2012; Vol. 543, c.173-178.]
	Far from being put on a plane, he is soon going to be out on our streets, and if the Home Secretary’s appeal fails, he will be a free man.
	It is clear now that all the Home Secretary’s promises and assurances were overblown and her strategy has fallen apart as a result of this decision. Like her, I am concerned about the SIAC conclusion given the assurances Jordan has provided, to which she rightly referred. She also rightly referred to the SIAC view that Abu Qatada will not be subjected to “a flagrantly unfair retrial”, and that is why we believe he should be deported. However, the immigration court also makes it clear that it is bound by the European Court judgment:
	“all that we can do is to return to the basic Strasbourg test: has the Secretary of State established that there is not a real risk that the impugned statements will be admitted probatively? To that question…the answer must be negative”.
	It is clear that the court believes there is a new test established. The Home Secretary blames that European Court judgment and says she disagrees with it, so why on earth did she not appeal against it when she had the chance to do so, as we urged her to do at the time?
	Secondly, what is the Home Secretary now doing to get that deportation back on track? We support the appeal. We hope she will be successful in arguing that the wrong legal test has been applied, but that is not enough. Has she started further discussions with Jordan? Has she put her junior Minister straight on a plane? The immigration court has said that what it needs now is a
	“change to the Code of Criminal Procedure”.
	What is she doing to pursue that, or other alternatives that might overturn that court decision?
	Thirdly, what is the Home Secretary doing to keep the public safe in the meantime? Tomorrow, Abu Qatada will be released on bail. Is she preparing an application for a terrorism prevention and investigation measure? That would be weaker than the control orders she chose to abolish. If her appeal fails, she will need to take further action. Under her new system of TPIMs, he will still be able to meet contacts in London, use his mobile phone, have access to the internet and only have his movement restricted overnight. We have asked her about that repeatedly, but will she please now look again at her decision to water down counter-terror powers in the light of this case?
	This judgment overturns the Home Secretary’s strategy to get Abu Qatada deported and to keep him in custody in the meantime. Her confidence and complacency have proved to be a mistake. There has been a catalogue of confusion and mistakes on Abu Qatada, including the Home Secretary getting basic dates wrong earlier this year. There is cross-party agreement on the importance of deporting Abu Qatada and protecting the public. We cannot afford further confusion and mistakes. The Home Secretary needs to take urgent action now to keep the public safe, and get this deportation back on track.

Theresa May: The shadow Home Secretary made a number of points, some of which, I have to say, were either wrong or irrelevant to what we have heard today. She seems to be trying to argue that the Government have not been doing enough to deport Abu Qatada. I can assure her and the whole House that, if it was the case that this was one of those situations where it was just a question of a decision by the Home Secretary, Abu Qatada would have been on the plane on 12 May 2010. However, it is not that simple and we have to work in accordance with the ruling of the courts.
	The work that we have undertaken with the Jordanians, which she referred to and seemed to brush to one side as if it was nothing, is unprecedented. The security Minister visited Jordan; I visited Jordan; and the Prime Minister has raised the issue with the King of Jordan. We have secured information and assurances that I still maintain should enable us to deport Qatada. Although the right hon. Lady was dismissive of those assurances, I will remind her, as I said in my statement, of what Mr Justice Mitting said about them. He said that the Jordanian Government
	“will do everything within their power to ensure a retrial is fair.”
	He continued:
	“The Jordanian judiciary, like their executive counterparts, are determined to ensure that the appellant will receive, and be seen to receive, a fair retrial.”
	SIAC stated that
	“if the only question which we had to answer was whether or not, in a general sense, the appellant would be subjected to a flagrantly unfair retrial in Jordan, our unhesitating answer would be that he would not.”
	The right hon. Lady asked whether we will continue our negotiations with the Jordanians. We are very grateful for the significant assurances the Jordanian Government have already provided. Of course, our work with the Jordanians will continue in the light of today’s judgment. The Jordanian Government put out a statement earlier today, which said:
	“We understand there will be an appeal and accordingly we will work with them”—
	that is, the UK Government—
	“to be able to bring him back to justice here in Jordan. Concerning the fear of a fair trial for him—there were guarantees for the British government on that, but also our constitution and our judicial system guarantees him that.”
	I am grateful to the Jordanian Government for that support.
	The right hon. Lady raised the issue of bail conditions. Abu Qatada will be subject to a 16-hour curfew. Other conditions will be determined by the court and announced tomorrow. I believe that a 16-hour curfew is as strict as the strictest of control orders, so I am afraid that what she says is not the case, and she needs to look at that issue again.
	The right hon. Lady referred to the new test and to the relative merits of the article 3 and article 6 issues. Those are different matters: Governments have for a long time been able to seek assurances about article 3 —that process is mature and has existed for many years—whereas the need for assurances about article 6 emerged only because of the European Court’s unprecedented judgment early this year.
	The right hon. Lady asked whether it would have been better had we referred the case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court. On that, she is wrong. Her argument seems to be that the European Court—the very court that has caused this difficulty by setting up a new barrier to deportation—is the solution to the problem. Not only is that palpably ridiculous, but an appeal to the Grand Chamber would have risked our wider deportation policies—[Interruption.] I suggest that she listens to this point. An appeal would also made it harder to deport further terrorists, had we lost the appeal. It would have been unwise, as well as fruitless.
	In April, and again today, the shadow Home Secretary told the House:
	“We all want Abu Qatada deported as soon as possible, under the rule of law”.—[Official Report, 19 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 508.]
	Unless she is prepared to break the rule of law, she has no solutions other than what the Government have already done. I suggest that, instead of trying to score a political hit, she supports the Government, is straight with the public and supports us in what we are doing to deport Abu Qatada.

William Cash: The Home Secretary will recall that she has herself urged the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998. In the light of these events, is it not now time to get on with this urgently? In that way, we will be able to protect not only the public from the likes of Abu Qatada but those alleged terrorists who deserve a fair trial. Let us give them a fair trial, legislate in this country and work out our own answers to these questions, rather than leaving it to the Strasbourg Court.

Theresa May: I am tempted to refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on this issue in my last statement on human rights, because I am afraid that I am not going to depart from the answers I have given him in the past. I have made clear my position on the Human Rights Act. Work is being done on it, including by the commission looking at the possibility of a British Bill of Rights in line with our human rights requirements. That commission will report in due course. On the operation of the European Court, as he knows, we have already taken
	steps to ensure that the Court focuses on the complex points of law that it was originally set up to address, instead of becoming just a court of appeal in so many cases.

Keith Vaz: The whole House will share the Home Secretary’s disappointment that this matter has gone on for seven years and cost the taxpayer £1 million in legal aid, and that yet again the silks of the Home Office appear to have been outwitted by a small north London firm of solicitors. I know that she has worked hard with the Jordanians—we are grateful for that—but the Jordanian Government are the key. I understand that the king is due here on 21 November. Is that an opportunity to ask him to do what the Court has suggested, which is to strengthen and change the Jordanian criminal code? That appears to be the only obstacle to ensuring that Abu Qatada goes back. The assurances have been accepted, but I understand that the structure of the criminal code is the main problem.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is right. Justice Mitting made several references to the criminal code and to the operation of the court of cassation. He is also right that the king will be in the UK shortly. We will work with the Jordanian Government across all parts of our representations in Jordan to ensure that we get the outcome that we all want, which is the deportation of Abu Qatada. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will consider every avenue to do that.

Edward Garnier: I can see that my right hon. Friend is not pleased with the commission’s decision, but she stopped just short of personally abusing the judge, for which I am grateful to her. I assume that tomorrow morning lawyers instructed by her Department will be making an application for an expedited appeal hearing, and that the points she made in her statement are precisely those that will be made in the application.

Theresa May: Yes. I thank my hon. and learned Friend. He is right. The judge made his judgment, and we disagreed with it. Of course, we are disappointed; we think it is wrong, and that is why we will appeal. We believe that there is a point of law on which it can be appealed, and will look to expedite it.

Hazel Blears: A very dangerous man is likely to be walking the streets of this country by tomorrow morning, and the public will simply not understand what has gone wrong. Indeed, I myself find it hard to believe that, despite having got the constitution of Jordan changed and the law changed, we are still unable to convince our own courts that those changes to the constitution and the law and the other assurances are sufficient to guarantee a fair trial. What more can be done to ensure that this man can be deported as a matter of urgency? Our legal system will find itself in a ludicrous position if this situation is allowed to go on for a moment longer.

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady is right. We are all deeply frustrated by the decision, given the strong assurances that we have received that Abu Qatada would receive a fair trial across a wide range of aspects. We believe that a point of law has been misinterpreted, and that it is
	therefore possible for us to appeal. We are asking leave to appeal; that is the first thing we can do. We are also talking to the Jordanian Government about what other avenues might be open to us. Ultimately, however, the problem is that the bar has now been set extremely high by the European Court, and it was that decision, which moved the goalposts, that made it harder for decisions to be made in the British courts.

Julian Huppert: What steps has the Home Secretary taken recently to investigate whether Abu Qatada could be charged in this country?

Theresa May: I can assure my hon. Friend that those investigations are always continuing, and that we look at all individuals in such situations to determine whether a prosecution is possible.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The failure to secure the deportation of Abu Qatada is a massive disappointment, but the public’s mind will now turn to the public safety issues involved. Will the Home Secretary tell the House what specific measures will no longer be available to her when Abu Qatada steps out tomorrow morning, now that we have done away with the control order regime?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman’s question is misguided. We have submitted our case this afternoon, and Home Office lawyers will be arguing in court tomorrow about the bail conditions. It has always been possible to have stricter conditions under bail than under control orders. The question is therefore what bail conditions will be set, and we will argue for the strictest possible ones.

Mark Pritchard: Of course, Mr Justice Mitting does have form in this area, not only with Abu Qatada but with Abu Hamza. Abu Qatada will be laughing in his prison cell right now, and in his luxury flat—no doubt paid for by the taxpayer—tomorrow. What further discussions can the Home Secretary have with the Jordanian authorities to ensure, in the light of the European Court of Human Rights’ second part judgment on evidence obtained by torture, that the Jordanian Government can satisfy not only SIAC but the ECHR and the British Government?

Theresa May: We are pursuing all avenues of discussion with the Jordanian Government to see what can be done to address the important point that the judgment has raised. My hon. Friend referred to Justice Mitting. I would point out that, although I obviously disagree with the judgment today, Justice Mitting has given a number of judgments favourable to the Government in deportation cases, so I suggest that my hon. Friend take a more rounded view of the judge’s decisions.

Paul Goggins: The Home Secretary has highlighted the contradictions in the SIAC judgment, and she is right to seek an appeal. Members on both sides of the House are horrified at the prospect of this man walking freely around the streets of London, or indeed anywhere else in the country. Does she propose to provide further information to the Court of Appeal—perhaps, for example, in the form of
	a request for a personal appearance by the Jordanian ambassador—to make it absolutely clear that the assurances that she gave to SIAC can be relied on?

Theresa May: Obviously, we will look at every avenue that it would be appropriate to follow in order to uphold our case and to get what we all want, which is the deportation of Abu Qatada. If we look at the judgment, however, we can see that SIAC has been very clear about the vast majority of assurances in relation to the fair trial that Abu Qatada would receive, to his personal treatment, to his ability to have access to defence lawyers and so on. The problem lay with the one point about the admissibility of evidence and, even in that regard, the judgment refers to the fact that there would be the possibility of cross-examination in relation to such evidence. Justice Mitting still came to this decision, however. We will appeal it, and we will fight our case as strongly as we can.

Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the concept of the rule of law, which this country played such a large role in developing, essentially involves a balance between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the constitution, and that the combination of a European institution, which cannot be reformed by anybody, and a philosophy that is increasingly prevalent among our own courts, which imports ideas from outside British common law and outside statute, is undermining the confidence of the public in the rule of law in this country?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has raised issues about which he has spoken on many occasions in the past, as have a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends. What the public want is to see Abu Qatada deported. We want to see Abu Qatada deported, and we are going to do everything we can within the rule of law to achieve that. It is still open to us to ask leave to appeal. We are doing that, and we will fight for that as hard as we can. We are doing everything in our power, working with the Jordanian Government, to ensure that we can bring about what the public want, which is the deportation of Abu Qatada.

Alison Seabeck: My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) highlighted some of the confusion that has led to Abu Qatada still remaining in the UK. However, one issue the Home Secretary raised was the weight given in the ruling to case law relating to Jordan. She also talked about agreements not being reached with other Governments. Can she say whether there is any precedent in any of those other cases where case law was not in place, but where deportations have happened?

Theresa May: The point is that in other deportations we did not have this particular issue at heart—the question of the admissibility of evidence and whether it was achieved through torture. That is a particular point pertaining to the case of Abu Qatada.

Michael Ellis: Bearing two things in mind—that the British Government have clearly taken unprecedented steps and bent over backwards to try to facilitate the court’s wishes in these matters;
	and that the judge indicated in his ruling that he did not feel that there would be an unfair trial in Jordan—are there not some inherent and unhealthy contradictions in this judgment, which clearly merit the strong and robust appeal that my right hon. Friend has indicated she will pursue in the higher courts?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. With his legal background, I am sure he will have cast his eye over the judgment to reach exactly the point he made. We feel that there is an opportunity to appeal and that there are points of law on which we can appeal. That is why we will be seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal with the strongest possible case we can put forward.

Jeremy Corbyn: Clearly, the use of torture is illegal in Britain and the use of evidence obtained under torture is similarly illegal in this country. Does the Home Secretary not think that we would all be much better served if other countries, including Jordan, signed up to the UN convention against torture, which would make it illegal for them to use torture or any evidence obtained under it from any other jurisdiction? Until that day comes about, it is going to be difficult to deport people from European jurisdictions to those that have not signed up to the UN convention.

Theresa May: The whole point is that Jordan has made torture illegal. It has been illegal since 2006, and the country specifically changed its constitution last year to make it clear not only that torture was forbidden, but that
	“any statement extracted from a person under duress…or the threat thereof shall neither be taken into consideration or relied on.”
	That is from article 8.2 of the Jordanian constitution. Part of the issue in Justice Mitting’s judgment today is that that constitutional change took place last year; there is no case law that shows the operation of that constitutional change.

David Morris: I have been looking at Twitter as we have been speaking, and it is obviously a highly contentious issue, as all Members agree. We want to see the back of this man, but it seems impossible to get rid of him. Without wanting to pre-empt the tabloid press tomorrow, are there any contingencies in place to try Qatada here? Is that possible in any way, shape or form, or could it be done in Europe, leaving Europe to pick up the bill for it, as this is costing a fortune? This is a question not from a legal person, but from a lay person who is also a Member of Parliament.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is coming up with innovative ideas to resolve this problem. All I would say to him is that we are making sure that we explore any and every avenue open to us to ensure that we can deport Abu Qatada.

Rehman Chishti: Can the Home Secretary clarify that stringent bail conditions will be applied similar to those previously used when Abu Qatada was on bail, which meant that he was unable to commit further offences?

Theresa May: We are certainly arguing for the strictest possible bail conditions. Justice Mitting has already set the curfew at 16 hours, which is less time than when Abu Qatada was previously on bail. We will find out tomorrow morning what the full conditions are, but we will certainly be arguing for the strictest possible conditions.

Jason McCartney: I apologise for asking exactly the same question I asked earlier this year, but it is on behalf of many of my constituents who will be totally perplexed by this situation. What would the sanctions be if we prioritised national security and just put Abu Qatada on a plane back to Jordan?

Theresa May: I would be breaking the law. Anybody—any official, any civil servant, anybody who had anything to do with putting him on the plane—would be breaking the law, and that is why we will not be doing that. It would be breaking the law.

David Nuttall: Can the Home Secretary confirm that until the European Court of Human Rights interfered and stopped Abu Qatada’s deportation last January, British courts and British judges had always agreed with the Government that he should be deported?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right: Abu Qatada had taken his appeal through all levels of the courts here in the UK, and at every level it had been found that he could be deported. It was the appeal to the European Court that prevented his deportation, and although today’s decision is one of a British court, it has been taken against the background of a very high barrier to deportation that has now been set by the European Court.

Peter Bone: I have listened to an hour of excuses for why we cannot deport this man. The Home Secretary wants to deport him; the shadow Home Secretary wants to deport him; the Supreme Court says he can be deported; the British people say he should be deported. Just deport him, and worry about the consequences afterwards. Does the Home Secretary agree?

Theresa May: I think we have had this conversation before, or a very similar one, and I repeat what I have always said: it is my intention to do everything in the Government’s power to deport Abu Qatada within the rule of law. It is important that Ministers standing at this Dispatch Box commit themselves to operating within the rule of law.

Julian Lewis: Do special circumstances apply in this case, or is a judgment of this sort sending a signal to any terrorist, on the run for crimes committed in any country that may not have a judicial system fully recognised as right up there with western standards, that they just have to make a beeline for the United Kingdom and they are safe, because nobody can deport them?

Theresa May: Judgments at the European Court have been making it harder to deport foreign nationals who are terrorist suspects or criminals, but I do not believe that this sends the message that my hon. Friend believes
	it does. There are some very particular aspects of this case. A trial in absentia took place regarding Abu Qatada, and evidence was allegedly obtained from mistreatment or torture, given by others in that trial in absentia. So there are particular aspects that would not read across to other cases, but that is precisely why I think it was right that we did not risk losing our deportation with assurances, which we could have, had we appealed to the European Court. There are other terror suspects whom we will be able to deport under our deportation with assurances that will not be affected by this judgment, but could have been affected by a judgment by the European Court to overturn those assurances.

Philip Hollobone: My constituents in Kettering will be horrified at today’s judgment on Abu Qatada, disgusted that this dreadful man could be at liberty tomorrow, and appalled at the rising cost of legal aid for him to defend his cause. Does my right hon. Friend know how much money has been spent on legal aid in his defence, and is there no limit to the amount of money taxpayers are being asked for to fund his case?

Theresa May: The amount of legal aid available has been a matter for the Legal Services Commission. I am not aware of the complete sum that it has allowed in relation to this. I understand my hon. Friend’s and the public’s concerns, which is why, in a more general sense, setting aside this case, we want to ensure that we can deport and extradite people more quickly than we can do today, so that we do not have people sitting in these sort of circumstances.
	May I correct something I said earlier in response to another of my hon. Friends, Mr Deputy Speaker? I believe I said that at every stage the British courts previously had found in favour of deportation. I understand that under the previous Government, at one stage, the Court of Appeal found against them on deportation, but that then went to a higher court, which found in favour of deportation. There was one judgment against deportation.

Glyn Davies: The content of today’s statement will come as a huge disappointment to hon. Members across this Chamber and to the constituents we represent. I had reassured my constituents that this man would be deported. We know that the law has been changed in Jordan, and I told my constituents that it had outlawed evidence gained by torture and that the deportation was very likely to go ahead. Can the Home Secretary tell me what I should say to my constituents? What certainty can I give them that this man, who should not be walking our streets, is going to be deported?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend can tell his constituents that this Government are as determined as they ever have been to deport Abu Qatada and that this Government are doing everything they can to ensure that we achieve that aim. We are at one on this: we want Abu Qatada out of this country.

Point of Order

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that anyone who cares about the welfare of members of the armed forces will have been shocked by the Armistice day story in yesterday’s The Sunday Telegraph about a special forces sergeant who has been sentenced to a year and a half in prison for having kept a presentation weapon given to him by the Iraqi special forces five years ago. Has there been any indication from a Defence Minister that a Defence Minister will come to this House to make a statement soon on the outrageously disproportionate and unjust nature of the sentence that has been passed on this gentleman, who has spent his life fighting people from al-Qaeda, not proselytising for them?

Nigel Evans: Thank you for that point of order, Dr Lewis. I have not been notified that a Defence Minister, or indeed any other Minister, wishes to make a statement today on this matter or on any other. But should that change, the House will be informed in the usual way.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[9th Allotted Day]

Ash Dieback Disease

Mary Creagh: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that ash dieback, which could affect 80 million native ash trees, has been identified in 115 sites; further notes that Government ministers were informed of the disease on 3 April 2012; regrets that the public were not informed about the disease this spring and that a thorough survey of woodland was not carried out this summer; further regrets that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has circulated a briefing to hon. Members from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, but not the Opposition; recognises that 530 staff posts have already been cut from the Forestry Commission, including 38 posts in Forest Research which investigates tree diseases, and that the Forestry Commission budget will be cut from £47.5 million in 2010-11 to £36.2 million in 2014-15; calls on the Government to issue clear advice to tree growers and the public as to the best way to prevent disease spread and to work with all hon. Members, including the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, as well as councils and other affected stakeholders to fight this disease and ensure that lessons are learned; and further calls on the Government urgently to assess whether the Forestry Commission has adequate resources to guarantee that there are enough Forestry Commission staff and scientists to carry out further tree health surveys and to commit to work with all stakeholders to overcome the environmental, economic and ecological impact of this terrible disease.
	May I begin by saying what a disappointment it is to see that, once again, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has delegated the challenge of explaining ministerial inaction on this disease to his colleague the Minister of State? I heard on this morning’s “Farming Today” that the Secretary of State was on a plane to China, yet Ministers were aware last Thursday that this debate was taking place. I believe it is a matter of courtesy to the House that Government business of this nature comes first. We wish him well on his trip to China, but we hope that he will, eventually, turn up in the House to tell us what he is doing.

David Heath: I honestly think that if the hon. Lady believes that the Secretary of State should have cancelled a mission to the largest market in the world, where he is trying to promote British produce, in order to come to argue with her on her rather ridiculous motion today, her sense of priorities is very distorted indeed.

Mary Creagh: I will leave the public to decide whether flogging fromage to the Chinese is more important than explaining to the British people what action the Secretary of State is taking on a major environmental and ecological disaster that is unfolding on his watch. [Interruption.] I believe that “flogging fromage and fizz” are the words he used the last time he went off to France, so I am using his own words back at him. Clearly, it would be much more comfortable to be going off to China than to be in the hot seat, where the Minister of State finds himself.
	The scale of the ash dieback emergency is now clear. It has been found in 129 sites in England and Scotland, including 15 nurseries and 50 recently planted sites. The most worrying discovery is that the disease is present in 64 woodland sites. That number will rise sharply as more trees are surveyed. Professor Michael Shaw from Reading university has described it as “catastrophic”.
	Scientists believe that most of our 80 million ash trees will face a long, slow decline over the next 10 years. The tree that accounts for one third of our native broad-leaved woodland will all but disappear. A few resistant trees will survive and their seeds will be carefully stored to restock the forests when our children are already grown. Lichens, moths, beetles and bugs that rely on the ash’s alkaline bark will suffer. The 27 species of insects that depend on the ash as their sole food plant might become extinct. Plant nurseries and woodland owners will lose thousands of pounds as they destroy ash saplings, and the wood industry will suffer as wood prices rise. Timber that was planned for will not reach maturity. Chalara fraxinea, or ash dieback, will change our landscape for ever. It is an environmental, ecological and economic disaster.

Caroline Lucas: Does the hon. Lady agree that this Government’s preference for arguing that the primary reason for the spread of the disease is the wind rather than imports is politically convenient but not very accurate?

Mary Creagh: I do, and I shall expand a lot more on that later in my speech.

David Ruffley: On that point, the hon. Lady will be aware that in my part of the country, in East Anglia, the disease has been found in mature trees that we know have had no contact with nurseries that have imported ash plants. Wind-borne fungus is therefore certainly a possibility. In the interests of clarity and empirical evidence, will she acknowledge that that might be the case?

Mary Creagh: I am going on the empirical evidence, and I shall spend an extensive part of my speech reviewing the scientific facts, seeing how they have changed since they were first published last Wednesday—because they have—and going into great detail on that point.

George Freeman: Before the hon. Lady develops her theme of the Government’s having been caught short and not reacting properly, does she agree that the Department was alerted to the problem as far back as 2007, two years earlier than has been reported, and that the budget for studying tree disease was cut by more than half in real terms in the years leading up to 2010?

Mary Creagh: There has been confusion on both sides of the House about what the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who is in his place, did or did not do. He asked the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to do a thorough search of all the ministerial papers he saw on ash dieback, which has shown that he did not see the correspondence between the Horticultural Trades Association and the Forestry Commission about a possible import ban. The only
	mention of ash dieback was in a briefing note in February 2010, in which the disease was listed as absent from the country. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) chairs the all-party group on life sciences, so he should know that the way the disease has been discovered is still evolving.
	In 2009, it was thought that the fungus that caused ash dieback was already present in the UK. It was only subsequently that a new virulent species causing ash dieback was discovered. The science changed in 2010, when a new pathogen, Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus, was identified as the fungus causing the disease. I advise all hon. Members to read an article by Andy Coghlan in the New Scientist of 31 October that gives the scientific chronology of the disease. I also have a copy of the scientific paper in Forest Pathology in which the change was first discovered, which was printed in 2011.
	What did my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central do? He published the “Forestry Commission: Science and innovation strategy for British forestry 2010-2013” on 1 April 2010. It stated:
	“Over the next five years we will increase our budget for monitoring and biosecurity research particularly with regard to tree health to 15% of our research spend.”
	Even as late as autumn 2011, the Forestry Commission pathology bulletin confirmed that Britain was clear of the pathogen.

Barry Gardiner: The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) made a fair point about the possibility of airborne transmission. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) agree that there may be connectivity with nurseries to which seedlings were imported? It is quite possible that, over a year, there was airborne transmission to trees, in the way that the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds suggests, from those imported seedlings. That is not incompatible with his point.

Mary Creagh: It is much more likely that the disease spread from imported seedlings transplanted from nursery stock than that it blew in, on great gusts, over the North sea. We will examine that in more detail later. [ Interruption .] Ministers can chunter; the science is not politically convenient for them, but we will stick to what continental scientists have discovered until those facts are disproved.
	The disease was discovered in imported saplings in February this year. When did the public first hear that the infection was on UK soil? Was it in April, when Ministers were told that it had been discovered in a nursery? No. Was it in June, when it was discovered in newly planted sites, and there was increased risk to mature woodland, as the disease could blow in from those sites? No, it was not. We finally heard on 25 October, when the Secretary of State announced that he would ban ash imports during Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions in the House—a full eight months after the disease first appeared.
	Ministers could have started the consultation on a ban back in April, instead of leaving it until the end of August. The question on everyone’s lips is: “Why didn’t they?” The Secretary of State told the House on 25 October:
	“The minute we heard about this, we launched a consultation.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 1066.]
	Does he understand that a consultation is not a ban? Why did Ministers keep the public in the dark? This really matters, because scientists have lost eight months in our fight against ash dieback, as the diseased leaves have already fallen. I congratulate the university of East Anglia on its ashtag.org app and website, but what a shame it did not know that there was a problem in April, when Ministers did. Ministers’ incompetence has meant that we are behind the curve of the disease’s spread. This matters because we, the public, who love our forests, may have unwittingly spread the disease from June to October, the main fruiting season for the fungus. Had we known in spring, we could have completed a comprehensive survey this summer, using public good will. Ministers’ incompetence has helped the disease spread and will cost the taxpayer money.

Alison Seabeck: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need for public awareness. The nursery men—the people working closest to the new saplings coming in, and planting them out—say exactly the same: they were unaware. This is a very complex issue. Some 7,000 young saplings have been burned near Honiton, and the disease has turned up south-west of Exeter; we are really worried in the south-west. Should the Government not have given more information earlier?

Mary Creagh: If the Government had blown the whistle when Ministers first found out in April, the saplings would probably have been destroyed earlier, but nursery owners would not have lost the income that they spent over the summer tending and caring for those saplings, and they certainly would not have entered into any more contracts. The problem is that they have entered into contracts to buy from overseas, and that will be hugely problematic. Nursery owners have planted the tree seed and spent the money, and all those saplings will now be burned. Also, there has been unprecedented tree planting this year to mark the Queen’s diamond jubilee. That tree-planting effort by the nation to mark a very special event in the nation’s life could unwittingly have spread the disease, so Ministers’ incompetence has cost money.
	I want to finish with a chronology of what happened. Even when the ban was announced, it was done quietly. The Minister of State, who is pretty heroic in these sorts of things—he gets all these battlefield commissions—was forced to come to the House to answer my urgent question. There had been no written statement from the Secretary of State and no oral statement. Why are the Government so keen not to talk about ash dieback?
	On Friday 2 November, the Secretary of State convened Cobra to discuss the emergency response to ash dieback. That same day, a briefing letter went out—but only to Government MPs. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) raised a point of order with the Speaker about this extraordinary behaviour. Does the Minister not think that, with a national emergency of this size and scale, her Majesty’s Opposition should be kept informed? Why was only one part of the House informed? Do our constituents not deserve to know what is happening to their trees? [ Interruption. ] I just want to finish this point about biosecurity. May I warn the Minister about the dangers of contradictory advice? The Secretary of State has advised people to wash their
	children and their dogs when they go to a wood to make sure that they do not transfer the disease to the next wood. On Monday 5 November, however, Martin Ward, chief plant health officer at DEFRA, contradicted him on the “Today” programme:
	“It’s not a matter of scrubbing off all of the soil from boots. It’s just a matter of cleaning off the dead leaves…to stop the disease moving…from one site to another.”

Sarah Wollaston: Has the hon. Lady looked at the map showing the distribution of Chalara? Is she suggesting that there are no imports in the south-west or anywhere in the west of the country? How else can she explain the distribution map and the epidemiology of the spread of Chalara? It is quite clear that she is just trying to make cheap political points. She needs to look at the map.

Mary Creagh: As a scientist, does the hon. Lady understand epidemiology? The dots are all different colours: the red ones represent mature woodlands, and there are others for trees planted out in newly planted sites and nursery sites. The ones in the south-west are in nursery sites: there are no red dots in the south-west, ergo the disease seems to have spread from—[ Interruption. ] My theory, and it has yet to be disproved—[ Interruption. ] No, I shall come on to that, but I wish to make progress. I shall explain it to the hon. Lady.

Barry Gardiner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mary Creagh: No, I shall make progress.
	We had a 15-minute briefing from the Secretary of State last Wednesday, for which I am grateful, and we discussed the spread of the disease with Ian Boyd, DEFRA’s chief scientist. A document containing 10 key scientific facts was produced last Wednesday. Bullet point 10 said:
	“Wind-blown spores may be dispersed up to 20-30 kilometres, (high confidence)”.
	I was therefore surprised at the briefing to hear that the infection had blown in on the wind across the channel and the North sea, even though the channel is 30 km wide at its narrowest point. I was even more surprised, as the week went on, to learn that it had blown hundreds of miles across the North sea to infect mature trees in Northumberland and Scotland.
	The key scientific facts document is quite clear:
	“Longer distance spread occurs via infected plants or potentially via wood products”.
	That would explain the infection in the south-west that the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) is worried about. However, it is politically inconvenient to have a disease which Ministers knew was in the country, with saplings left to infect their wild and mature cousins. I grew suspicious when I realised that the Forestry Commission's key scientific facts, published on Wednesday, changed over the weekend. Bullet point 10 now says:
	“Wind-blown spores cause the disease to spread up to 20-30 km per year”.
	The inconvenient fact that the wind blows the spores just 20 to 30 km has completely disappeared. A whole new fact, however, has emerged:
	“On occasions, spores may disperse much further on the wind.”
	However, unlike every other key scientific fact that is categorised as low, medium or high confidence, there is no scientific reference to back up this new scientific fact, because there is none. As yet, I have not seen any evidence to back up Ministers’ claims about the wind. The disease has moved slowly and predictably across Europe, yet now it has developed new powers to cross great seas on the wind.
	Is an alternative scientific theory possible? Is it not possible that ash dieback has spread to mature trees in Northumberland and Scotland from the infected saplings that were planted out last winter and on which the fungus fruited this summer? It is certainly possible, and I would argue more probable than those gusts of wind.

Jim Shannon: Nurseries have indicated that hundreds of thousands of saplings that they imported from Europe came in because of the “chaotic and unpredictable” system of grants for tree planting on the UK mainland. Is the hon. Lady aware of that? If so, does she think that the disease and the reasons for its spread go much deeper than they appear to do?

Mary Creagh: One can argue about the system for woodland grants, but we would argue that it may be much cheaper to grow the ash saplings abroad, which is perhaps one of the reasons why landowners choose to buy them from abroad. It is also perhaps why the Horticultural Trades Association wanted the Government to regulate back in 2009, so that there was a level playing field in the industry and so that it did not impose its own voluntary moratorium, allowing others to import cheaper saplings and undercut the market.
	What happens next? The Forestry Commission has conducted a tree survey over 29,000 hectares, an area the size of Wales. It has sampled four woodland sites in each 100 square kilometres, giving us a rough idea of where to look next for the disease. As the surveys continue this winter, more disease sites will be found. I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, will he now review the scientific advice he has been given on other tree diseases? Does he have any plans to restrict trade in other species of trees on a precautionary basis? Does his import ban apply to resistant strains of ash species, which are now present in Denmark and, I believe, Lithuania?
	Secondly, have the detection and management of the disease been hampered by the cuts to the Forestry Commission? Its budget is being cut from £47.5 million in 2010-11 to £36.2 million in 2014-15. Some 530 staff posts have already been cut and seven regional offices closed. Thirty-eight posts have been cut in Forest Research, with another 22 earmarked to go. These are the scientists and experts who lead the fieldwork on tree health, and they are in the front line in our fight against this disease. Will the Minister review their posts? What assessment has he made of the impact of his Government’s cuts to the Forestry Commission on tackling tree disease?
	Thirdly, in 2009, at the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central, the former Secretary of State, the Forestry Commission established a biosecurity programme board, bringing together the industry, NGOs, Forest Research, the Scottish Government, and the Food and Environment Research Agency. What has happened to that board? It appears to have met just twice—in November 2009 and July 2010. The minutes of the final
	meeting on the Forestry Commission website show that forestry staff had concerns about the Government’s publicity freeze and cancellation of much of the publication budget, yet I know from my discussions over the weekend that the board appears to have continued meeting informally. Was it affected by the re-organisation and cuts at the Forestry Commission?
	The Secretary of State told the BBC last Friday that he is re-ordering his Department’s priorities and said:
	“There will be some things we do in DEFRA now that we are going to have to stop doing.”
	What are those things? And how does he know that not doing them is not storing up a fresh disease problem in the future in another area? Other areas of DEFRA will be quaking as they anticipate fresh cuts on top of the worst settlement of any Government Department.
	What contact has the Minister had with councils that are in the front line of dealing with this disease? What advice has he provided to them about council parks? Should they be undertaking surveys of their own trees? The Local Government Association has informed lead officers, but nothing seems to be coming out of the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Graham Jones: On that matter, I wrote to my local authority, Rossendale borough council, to which I had this reply:
	“The council have not received any prior notification”—
	this was last week—
	“regarding the disease and only became aware of the issue when it was announced in the media last week.”
	Is that not a shambles? Does my hon. Friend not find that staggering?

Mary Creagh: I find it amazing that a Department that is presumably present at a Cobra meeting to co-ordinate a national emergency response to a disease is not putting out any formal guidance to councils. Perhaps the Minister can explain that gross dereliction of duty.
	Were Transport Ministers present at Cobra meetings? The Highways Agency is constantly planting new trees along its motorway network. What about Network Rail, which has been undertaking a tree-felling programme this summer along the east coast main line, perhaps unwittingly spreading the disease up the east coast? We need answers to these questions.
	In conclusion, the British public care deeply about their forests. We saw that in the overwhelming opposition to the Government’s plans to privatise them last year. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) in her place; perhaps she can shed some light on some of the history of the disease. The forests now face a new and devastating threat from ash dieback disease. There is a bitter irony here: the Government who wanted to privatise the forests have now been forced to make further drastic cuts in order to fight tree disease. As the triennial review of Natural England and the Forestry Commission approaches, we will watch carefully to ensure that the Secretary of State does not embark on a further round of destabilising upheavals.
	We await the scientists’ first report, which will be available by the end of November. We will support the Secretary of State when he does the right thing, but we
	will challenge him when we feel that he is taking a wrong turn. We will not be excluded from his decision making. This is a vital issue for the British countryside and for our natural environment. All parties must learn the lessons of this disease, slow its spread and safeguard our forests for the next generation to enjoy.

David Heath: Earlier today I had an opportunity to see for myself the effects of Chalara fraxinea in woodland near Canterbury and to meet some of the 500-plus people who have worked around the clock to complete a survey on an unprecedented scale aiming to identify signs of the disease. I want to offer my sincere thanks to them all. They are not all Forestry Commission staff or employees of the Food and Environment Research Agency; a great many others have joined in and worked so hard to complete what has been a massive undertaking, including volunteers who have given up their time to help. As of today, the results of the survey show 155 cases of ash dieback caused by Chalara across Great Britain: 15 in nursery stock, 55 in recently planted sites and 85 in the wider environment. Further suspect cases are currently under investigation and we will continue to provide updates on confirmed cases on the Forestry Commission website.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) for giving me the opportunity to set out for the House the decisive action the Government have taken to tackle the threat from Chalara fraxinea and to lay to rest some of the myths she has perpetuated in recent weeks.

Graham Jones: The Minister said that he has received an assessment of the number of trees infected. Perhaps he could enlighten me on the answer I have received from Rossendale borough council. It states:
	“Currently we are not aware of any infected trees in Rossendale. However, the announcement regarding the disease came when our ash trees had already dropped their leaves for winter and, therefore, it is not possible to identify symptoms positively until next spring at the earliest.”

David Heath: Clearly we need to educate the hon. Gentleman’s borough council a little more on the signs and symptoms to look for with regard to Chalara fraxinea. It is possible to see retained leaves that are diseased and lesions on the bark, as I saw this morning. Summer is not the only time of year when it is possible to see dieback. I understand that the borough council officials have been unable to see signs of Chalara in his area, but that is because we have found no signs of Chalara in the area either. It is a long way from the English channel.

Mary Creagh: So is Edinburgh.

David Heath: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Ash dieback is caused by a fungal pathogen that has been present in Europe since 1992, when the disease was first discovered in Poland. Since then, it has spread to much of central and northern Europe. However, before 2010 the European scientific evidence indicated that the organism responsible for ash dieback was native in Great Britain. It was Hymenoscyphus albidus, which
	was drawn to the attention of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) at the time. I understand perfectly his position at the time, because the advice was that it was unlikely to cause significant harm. That belief meant that it would not have been appropriate to use import restrictions to control the disease.
	In 2010, new scientific evidence identified the pathogen that caused the disease, which was not known to be present in the UK. That meant that it was identified as a potential threat alongside many other potentially harmful organisms. In the light of that evidence, between 2010 and 2012 the Forestry Commission inspected ash trees across Great Britain—15,000 individual trees located in 8,310 groups. Only 103 trees were found to be suffering from disease, and in none of these was the cause identified as Chalara.
	That position changed in February this year, when a routine check by Government plant health inspectors discovered Chalara in a nursery in Buckinghamshire. This finding was confirmed on 7 March, and the UK plant health authorities acted immediately.

Alison Seabeck: With the potential loss of a third of Plymouth’s ash trees, there is real worry about this. Given that the disease was beginning to be understood some time ago, what work was started on disease-resistant seeds and young saplings, and is that work ongoing, so that when, we hope, this moves on, we can start to replant?

David Heath: It is certainly ongoing; I will return to that shortly. What the hon. Lady must realise is that we did not believe that we had Chalara in this country. Indeed, there was some suggestion that our native ash was, in part, resistant to the disease. That might be one of the reasons why the spread had not been observed until that point.

Alison Seabeck: In that case, given that the disease was present on the European continent, was any of that sort of work going on there? We may not have expected to have to think about doing it, but was it happening in Europe?

David Heath: The honest answer to the hon. Lady is that, surprisingly, very little work has been done on this. As she may imagine, we have reviewed all the scientific work that has been done across Europe, not only on pathogen identification but on silviculture, to see how to mitigate the effects of the disease. We have all been struck by how little work has been done and the great need for us better to understand the disease, how it develops, and how to develop proper resistance to it. She raises a perfectly proper point to which the answer, our scientists having reviewed all the literature and talked to their European counterparts, is that we are not as far advanced in our understanding as we perhaps ought to be given how long the disease has been endemic across the continent.

Barry Gardiner: The Minister is being extremely generous and courteous in giving way so often; I am grateful. He said that the first time the disease was positively identified was in April this year in stocks in a nursery. Can he therefore explain to the House, because this question is being widely asked, why it was not considered appropriate at that point to introduce a ban on imported ash seedlings? Many people look at this and say, “It was
	found in a nursery and we knew that these were imported seedlings, so why was the ban not put in place at that point?”

David Heath: The answer is that we do not import at that time of year and therefore no imports were coming in. The most important thing to do was to carry out a very detailed search as to where imports had taken place, going on from there to identify where sales and possible plantings had taken place so that we could identify any infected seedlings and have them destroyed. That was the thrust of what we were doing. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we also then went to consultation on the import ban, but we needed to know exactly the extent of what was happening, and the time scale meant that there were no plantings going on at that time of year.
	This calendar is very important to hon. Members’ understanding of exactly what has happened. For instance, a lot of people have the mistaken impression that we are now finding that the disease is suddenly spreading. It is not; it does not spread at this time of year because we are out of the sporulation season. We are identifying possible symptoms of disease, most of which have been there for a very long time—two years, three years, or perhaps more—in the trees in the wider environment that we had discovered to be infected. It is very important that people understand what is happening now.
	Let me return to my point. When Chalara was discovered, additional resources were deployed to trace ash trees known to have been supplied from infected nurseries, and over the summer 100,000 young ash trees were traced and destroyed. In parallel, the authorities developed the pest risk analysis that was required to support the precautionary action taken and to justify continued intervention—that is part of my answer to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). Such analysis was the basis for a fast-track consultation to strengthen evidence and seek views on an import and movement ban on ash trees. As I said, that took place outside the main planting season, but the industry took the sensible precaution of instituting a voluntary moratorium on imports of ash-planting material.
	We can be reasonably sure—not absolutely sure—that no ash seedlings were imported during the summer, other than through very casual means such as if someone brought one back in their car boot. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) asked me in an urgent question whether I could guarantee that no one had brought back an ash seedling in their car, but I am afraid I have not looked in every boot of every car, so I cannot give that guarantee. I can, however, give a reasonable assurance that commercial imports of ash seedlings did not take place during the summer.

Barry Gardiner: The Minister says that a ban on imports was not considered necessary because it was not believed that there would be imports at that time of year. Does he therefore accept that the horticultural trade and industry would have suffered no commercial detriment by the imposition of such a ban, and that prudence and risk analysis might have led him to do so?

David Heath: Again, I return to the fact that to impose a statutory ban, we must have evidence to suggest it is necessary. That is why we developed such evidence,
	which was put out in the consultation. The most important point is that plant importers recognised the potential damage the disease could do, and imposed a moratorium that stopped trees coming into this country over the summer. A statutory ban was not needed for that, but we ensured nevertheless that it was introduced at the earliest possible opportunity.
	None of that activity was compromised by cuts to the Forestry Commission budgets, as the hon. Member for Wakefield suggested. Although its overall budget has taken cuts since 2010, funding for plant health has not been reduced. Indeed, a bigger share of the Forestry Commission’s budget is now dedicated to plant health than previously, and spending by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in that important area has increased. The hon. Lady knows that to be the case because she asked questions and got answers, even if she is not prepared to accept them.

Angela Smith: Extra costs will clearly be required to monitor and tackle this disease. Will the Minister confirm whether he is prepared to go to the Treasury for those extra resources, and that they will not be taken from elsewhere in DEFRA’s budget?

David Heath: I confirm that we will use the resources necessary to do the job and deal with this disease effectively. The Government believe that we can mobilise those resources within the Department.

Andrew Miller: May I ask the Minister to correct the record? Although it is true that the Forestry Commission programme shows an increased spend under the heading “tree health and biosecurity”, figures under the heading “tree breeding for increased resilience and improved markets” show a 52% cut over the lifetime of the review.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman chairs the Science and Technology Committee, which I know will want to look at this issue in more detail. I invite it, however, to look at the totality of spend in this area, not all of which goes through the Forestry Commission—there are other heads. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at that spend, as I am sure he will, and come to an objective view about how much is being spent on this important matter.
	On Friday 26 October, the consultation, which I mentioned, closed. It demonstrated overwhelming support for import and movement restrictions, and on Monday 29 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a ban on the movement of ash from anywhere that is not a designated pest-free area—I should point out that nowhere is labelled a designated pest-free area. There is now a criminal offence, carrying a maximum fine of £5,000.
	On 24 October—during the consultation period—Chalara was confirmed in the wider environment in East Anglia. The trees had no apparent connections to nurseries. Since that finding, the Government have taken action on an unprecedented scale to tackle the problem. At the beginning of November, we initiated a rapid survey of the whole of Great Britain. More than 500 people
	worked around the clock to survey 2,500 10 km squares for signs of disease. That massive undertaking was completed by 7 November, and gave us an initial picture of the distribution of ash dieback caused by Chalara. We have also received valuable intelligence from organisations including the Country Land and Business Association and the Woodland Trust, which has mobilised its members to look for signs of the disease.

Jim Shannon: The Northern Ireland Assembly has adopted additional safeguards to ensure that there is no infiltration of ash plants. It has adopted a “Fortress Northern Ireland” approach—in other words, nothing gets in and nothing gets out. Perhaps that has happened in the past, but even with those strict rules and legislation, there is an outbreak in Leitrim in the Republic of Ireland. Will the Minister confirm and assure the House that every step is being taken to stop ash dieback in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that there is direct consultation with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?

David Heath: I can indeed confirm that. Ministers or officials from all three Administrations have been involved in every one of our consultation meetings on the subject. We want to ensure that they have access to all the information we have, and that we have all the information they have. I ought to mention that we have been working closely with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, because we obviously need to co-ordinate our efforts to ensure that we understand how to treat cases, and particularly those in the wider environment, and how to preserve as far as possible the whole of the British Isles as a disease-resistant or disease-free area.

Mark Lazarowicz: One infected area is just a few miles north of my constituency. What work has been done to get an idea of the possible spread of the disease within urban areas, as well as in more rural and forested areas?

David Heath: We divided the country, including urban and rural areas, into 10 km grid squares. Every square where there is known to be ash trees has been examined, although there are only very few in some urban areas. Nevertheless, we have examined ash trees in all those areas, so the results of the findings cover the whole country, including urban areas. I am most grateful for the active interest of Scottish Government Ministers, who have been involved in our discussions from an early stage.

Angela Smith: I thank the Minister for giving way once again—he is generous with his time. He has spoken to the devolved Administrations, but has he consulted his counterparts in the Department for Communities and Local Government and spoken to the Local Government Association about the role of local authorities in tackling the disease?

David Heath: I can confirm what the hon. Lady asks—the DCLG and the LGA specifically attended Cobra meetings, so they are fully in the loop. We have given advice to the LGA for dissemination to local authorities, which understand their responsibilities. The Highways Agency is also involved—a point about transport links was made earlier. We are conscious of the fact that some
	new plantings are inevitably associated with major road systems—and, indeed, the railways—and we are taking great care to ensure that those trees are inspected and appropriate action taken.
	Most of the cases confirmed in the wider environment are clustered in the east and south-east of England—in Norfolk, Suffolk and Kent. A few cases have been found further west or extending north up the east coast. The disease is present in mature trees in those areas. That pattern suggests two things. Chalara fraxinea first came to Britain through spores blown on the wind from continental Europe, and the advice from the specialists who know about these things is that it has been here for some time—at least two years, and possibly more.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again so generously. The scientific advice that we have received says:
	“Local spread may be via wind, rain splash or even transmission by insects. Over longer distances the risk of disease spread is most likely to be through the movement of diseased ash plants.”
	That does not accord with the idea that the disease first had its impact on these shores after being blown across the North sea or the channel by wind; it suggests that it would have come here in saplings with the contagion then spread on the wind locally.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman’s theory—it is also the theory of the hon. Member for Wakefield—does not accord with the advice of the leading experts—[ Interruption. ] The hon. Lady talks about “scientific facts”. I think that displays her underlying problem with understanding how science is developed. We can deal only with the most probable reason for the evidence that is put before us. The leading experts from the United Kingdom and Europe—whom we brought together over the last two weeks under the leadership of DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Ian Boyd—have reviewed the evidence and said that what they see is consistent with a view that the disease is brought in by wind-blown spores.

Caroline Lucas: rose —

David Heath: In a moment, because I want to correct the nonsense that the hon. Member for Wakefield is promoting.
	When the hon. Lady talks about the disease’s speed of progress being 20 to 30 km, we are talking about the front of an epidemic; therefore, it is the speed at which a front in a forest develops over mainland Europe. That does not mean that a spore cannot be carried on the wind for further than 20 or 30 km—that it somehow drops out of the sky when it reaches the 30 km mark and feels it cannot go any further. That is not what the science is saying; what the science is saying is that this is the most likely outcome. Anyone who looks at the distribution will see that it is entirely consistent with wind-blown spread. In fact, many people have said to me that it looks very similar indeed to the distribution of blood tongue, when that hit these shores. [ Interruption. ] I see the right hon. Member for Leeds Central is nodding, because he knows that that is the case, and that—[ Interruption. ] Yes, the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) knows better than the scientific experts and a former Secretary of State; he knows that none of this can happen.

Mary Creagh: I find it extraordinary that the original version of the “Key scientific facts” document from Wednesday said:
	“Longer-distance spread occurs via infected plants,”
	whereas version 2—or version B, or whatever it is—from over the weekend contains this miraculous new scientific fact:
	“On occasions, spores may disperse much further on the wind,”
	albeit without any scientific reference at all. It seems as though the scientists are desperately trying to cover Ministers’ backs.

David Heath: Yes, I am sure the hon. Lady is right: we have an international conspiracy of all the leading forestry scientists in the world, who have decided they want to manufacture evidence to fit some theory concocted in the bowels of my Department. I mean, really, grow up! Look at the map, look at the facts, look at the evidence.

Caroline Lucas: Clearly wind has a role to play locally. No one is denying that. The issue is whether the wind is one of the primary vectors. Let us consider tree diseases more broadly. Does the Minister accept that since 2000, more than twice as many tree diseases have entered the UK as entered it in the whole of the last century? Does he want us to believe that it has been incredibly windy since 2000, or is it the case that the number of imports has increased vastly in that time?

David Heath: No, I do not want the hon. Lady to believe that. Actually, I believe that there has been hugely greater mobility of goods and people in recent years, which has spread disease. That is of real concern to all of us, and we need to deal with it. All I am saying is that, according to a detailed analysis, the incidence of ash dieback disease in this country is consistent with its having been brought in by wind-blown spores. That is what all the leading scientists are telling us, and I see no reason to disbelieve them or to involve some conspiracy theory.

Barry Gardiner: Will the Minister give way?

David Heath: I think I will make a little more progress. I may give way to the hon. Gentleman later.

Barry Gardiner: rose—

David Heath: Well, all right. One more time.

Barry Gardiner: I am very grateful to the Minister. He has said that, according to the scientists, the incidence of the disease is consistent with its having been carried in by the wind. Of course I take his word for that, but he has used the same phrase repeatedly, which has led me to worry. Are the scientists saying that the incidence of the disease is consistent with its having been carried in by the wind, or are they saying that the wind is the most likely vector for its transmission? What do they believe is the most likely vector?

David Heath: When we have completed all the epidemiological modelling, we shall be in a better position to answer that question. At present, it is perfectly proper to recognise that the likelihood—

Andrew Miller: Where are the citations?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman, who purports to know about science, really ought to understand scientific method. I think that a theory from our chief scientific adviser, supported by all the experts in Britain and Europe, is rather better than one propagated by the hon. Member for Wakefield to support her conspiracy theory.
	As I have said, these conclusions have been endorsed by the leading experts, who have reviewed the evidence about Chalara to help us to understand how it is spread, its impact on our ash trees, and how we might tackle it. A summary of their conclusions was sent to all Members on 7 November and published on 9 November. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in a written ministerial statement last Friday, the advice from the scientists
	“is that it will not be possible to eradicate Chalara.”—[Official Report, 9 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 49WS.]
	The experience in the rest of Europe is that there is no effective treatment. However, that does not mean the end of the British ash. While young trees succumb to the disease fairly quickly, mature trees with the infection can live for many years. We know that the Danes have identified a small number of trees that seem to be resistant to Chalara. That knowledge buys us some time, so what can we do?
	It is clear that the Government alone cannot tackle this threat. On 7 November, we convened a summit that brought together more than 100 representatives of the forestry and horticulture industries and environmental groups to advise us. There was a broad consensus on the evidence and on the action that we should take. The strong message is that we should not be panicked into taking draconian action that could be futile or counter-productive. The lesson of the Dutch elm disease of the 1970s is that much of the costly action taken then simply did not work. We have a window over the next few months while the disease is not spreading, and that will enable us to develop the right approach. The disease is not spreading, incidentally, because this is not the sporulating season for it. There are no fruiting bodies, and there are therefore no spores—unless the hon. Member for Wakefield has a theory that there is winter sporulation as well.

Graham Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—he is being very generous with his time—but why has he not written to local authorities about this? He has written to neither Hyndburn borough council nor Rossendale borough council. Will he tell us, and the local authorities, when he intends to write to them explaining how he will intervene to tackle the issue?

David Heath: I expect local authorities to show a little common sense. The whole country is benefiting from the very good Forestry Commission website, which is providing all the information that they need in order to identify the disease. We bring the Local Government Association into the inner workings of government at the Cobra committee, so it can provide information to local authorities. I do not think there needs to be a letter from me just to add to the pile of correspondence—and reduce the number of trees in this country in the process—rather than authorities taking sensible advice.
	Building on the advice of the summit, on Friday the Secretary of State announced the immediate action we would be taking. Newly planted diseased trees and diseased trees in nurseries will be traced and destroyed, as young trees that are infected succumb quickly. Mature trees will not be removed, however, as they are valuable to wildlife and take longer to die. They can help us learn more about the genetic strains that might be resistant to the disease. Infection does not occur directly from tree to tree—a point which, again, is lost on some.
	Better understanding of the disease will be built through research and surveys, looking not only for diseased trees, but for those that show signs of resistance to Chalara. The search for the disease will include trees in towns and cities—a point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz)—as well as in the countryside. It will also include building partnerships with a range of organisations beyond government and providing advice to foresters, land managers, environmental groups and the public about how to identify diseased trees and those likely to be resistant to the disease, and what to do with that information.
	Organisations such as the Woodland Trust and the National Trust have endorsed this approach. None of the action we have taken to date or that is planned involves restricting access to the countryside. The scientists are clear that there is no need for that. We want to ensure rural businesses continue to operate and that people who want to enjoy the countryside can do so.
	These are just the first steps, and by the end of November we will have developed a comprehensive control plan that will set up longer-term action to tackle Chalara. It will consider measures such as designating protected zones and improving diagnostics and biosecurity. Our approach will, for the first time, look at how we can mobilise the many people who love our countryside and value the trees in our towns and cities, in order to help us tackle this disease. For the longer term, we will learn the lessons from the response to Chalara and use them to consider our strategic approach to plant health. The Secretary of State has already told the House that he is prepared to look at radical options. He will come back to the House in a few weeks to report on progress.
	I believe we have taken all appropriate actions to deal with what is a very serious situation.

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has not mentioned one very important point: the cost to the landowners in my constituency who have bought many thousands of saplings and who are now having to destroy them.

Nigel Evans: That is not a point of order for the Chair. The Minister is responsible for his own speech. Indeed, Mr Sheerman, you have only just come into the Chamber.

David Heath: I am most grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	As I was saying, this is a very difficult situation, and I believe we have taken all appropriate steps. To repeat something I said in response to the previous urgent question, we are not going to engage in the blame game. This is not a question of attributing blame to anyone; it is a question of getting things right, by working with
	everybody who has a genuine interest in the future of our forests and woodlands and making sure they are mobilised in the most effective way to deal with Chalara. Those who want to peddle conspiracy theories can do so if they wish; we will get on with dealing with the disease.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. This is a time-limited debate and the winding-up speeches will start at about 6.40 pm. As a large number of Members wish to contribute, there will be a six-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions, with the usual injury time for two interventions.

Andrew Miller: I want to deal with the issue of process. According to the DEFRA website, the ash has a high conservation value, and we all agree with that. I presume that in the national risk register of civil emergencies ash dieback fits into the category of
	“an event or situation which threatens serious damage to the environment of a place in the United Kingdom—where environmental damage is defined as ‘contamination of land, water or air with biological, chemical or radio-active matter, or disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life’”.
	There is a definitional issue, but will the Minister confirm that that was the basis on which Cobra was convened?
	The national risk register—a first-rate document—offers enhanced guidelines for the creation of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. I am unclear—the DEFRA website does not refer to it one way or the other—whether the group has been constituted under the rules in the risk register and is managed as a SAGE process. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that. I presume that this fits into the level 1—significant emergency—category, which has a wider focus and requires central Government involvement or support, primarily from a lead Government Department or devolved Administration, alongside the work of emergency responders.
	It seems that that process has been adopted, but it is not as clear as the Government intended when they established the register—a document that I confirmed to the Minister for the Cabinet Office to be first rate—earlier this year. It is a pity that DEFRA has not followed the rules set out in the document. Only a few months ago, the Select Committee on Science and Technology heard from the Forestry Commission trade unions that about 66 of the 230 members of staff in the Forest Research agency will be lost as a result of cuts. There is also a significant cut in tree breeding for increased resilience, which I am sure, in hindsight, the Minister agrees is a pity.

Alison Seabeck: I am interested to hear my hon. Friend’s analysis, but does he share my concern that people with expertise in how to protect not only the ash but the wider eco-system—the insects and flora and fauna that depend on the ash—will be among those losing their jobs? Is he concerned that we are not thinking beyond the current crisis?

Andrew Miller: That is precisely why I began by referring to the definition on DEFRA’s website, which encompasses the broader conservation issues. The National
	Trust, of which I am proud to be a member, welcomes the Government’s commitment to further research and calls for money to be committed to plant health, which is hugely important.
	In my capacity as Chair of the Select Committee I wrote to the Minister on Friday—it is perfectly reasonable that he has not replied yet; I do not criticise him for that—asking what scientific evidence there is to support the theory that cases of Chalara fraxinea in East Anglia were caused by airborne spores from Europe. Will he put on the record the scientific citations that support that? He cannot do so because there are not any. An eminent group of people for whom I have the greatest respect has come up with possible explanations, but the Minister did not say that, given the way fungal infections spread, it is equally possible that these cases started some time ago and came from imported seedlings. He does not know the answer and perhaps he will confirm that.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is being fair. With epidemiology there are never definite answers, but I hope he will agree that the distribution is not entirely consistent with the view that this came from imported seedlings—one would expect a much more rational distribution across the country than the eccentric distribution shown in the tests.

Andrew Miller: I referred to the SAGE precisely because the Select Committee’s report on scientific advice in emergencies called for an opening up of the process. I believe that one alternative explanation has not been rigorously tested, although it could be by an open call for evidence from the Minister. Nurseries in places such as Lancashire, from where the trees I planted 10 years ago were sourced, source their trees from locally grown seedlings, whereas closer to the European mainland the probability is greater that seedlings were sourced from within Europe. That possibility needs to be tested, and by opening up the SAGE process I invite the Minister to do just that and close the missing link.
	There are issues on the DEFRA website that concern me. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) spoke of how the website had changed miraculously, but I remind the Minister that the changes were made without any reference to scientific citation whatsoever, and that must be examined.
	Chief scientific advisers ought to be able to give scientific advice, based on the science, freely and openly to the Government, and it is not for Ministers to reinterpret that on their Department’s website. That is an improper use of the scientific advice, which should be available to the whole House and indeed the whole country. There is no reason that the process cannot be conducted most transparently, and if it is we will suck in all the information necessary to solve the problem once and for all. It is a challenging issue, but I hope the Minister takes my advice.

Zac Goldsmith: I welcome the recent action that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has taken to tackle ash dieback, imposing an import ban and restrictions on movement; initiating a national survey to map the extent of the disease; and hosting a
	summit of forest experts to identify ways of tackling ash dieback in the short term and tree health generally in the long term, on which point I wish to focus briefly.
	It is hugely worrying that, as we heard from the Minister, there are 150 confirmed sites with ash dieback, but we need to keep sight of the fact that this is just one of many of the growing number of invasive pests and diseases threatening the UK’s native trees. Seventy per cent. of horse chestnut trees are affected by bleeding canker in some parts of England. Our iconic English oaks are in serious trouble, wilting under assault from acute and chronic oak decline. In part of my constituency, up to 50% of our oaks show signs of acute oak decline. It has been claimed by The Daily Telegraph—so it must be true—that there are more ancient oaks in Richmond park than in all of Germany and France combined. Even if we halve that and allow for a little exuberance, it is still a tragedy to think that these great oaks are facing a very serious threat.
	In March, the usually fatal sweet chestnut blight was found to have hopped the channel from France. Sweet chestnut is the main tree species in an estimated 30,000 acres of woodland in Britain. According to a recent report by Robin Maynard of the Countryside Restoration Trust—I declare an interest as a trustee of the CRT—25 new pests and diseases are already established, recently arrived, on their way or seen as likely threats to our trees. Clearly, that is not just a rural problem; a high proportion of the trees under threat are planted in urban areas. For instance, plane trees constitute one 10th of all trees in the capital, and the plane wilt fungus has ravaged 80% of plane trees in France. Last year, French officials revealed that all 42,000 plane trees lining France’s historic Canal du Midi, a world heritage site for the past 10 years, in southern France, would be felled because of the disease.
	What is happening? Research implicates a greatly expanded horticultural trade in imported species as the main Trojan horse for new pests and diseases. It accounts for up to 70% of invasive introductions to the US and anything up to 90% to the UK. It is believed that Phytophthora ramorum in larch came in on one viburnum shrub imported from the EU to a nursery in Cornwall in 2002. A batch of maples imported into the EU and Britain from China was found, despite being certified pest-free by the Chinese authorities, to be infested with Asian longhorn beetles. Oak processionary moth infestations have been tracked back to one large specimen oak brought in from Holland. It came in roughly six years ago, and in my constituency it has grown exponentially. The tragedy is that the annual cost of just managing the oak processionary moth is probably what it would have cost to deal with it outright in the year when it was detected. It costs £200,000 a year in Richmond park alone, not to mention Kew gardens and other such areas.
	The Woodland Trust has pledged to support community and local tree nurseries to help to ensure that new tree planting is rooted in the community. Obviously, that is welcome. One thing many of us can do is ensure that, when we plant trees, they are UK-grown and disease-free. It seems absurd that we are importing ash trees, when there are hundreds of millions in the UK already.
	The famous Mrs Beeton advised in her “Book of Household Management”:
	“No matter how small your garden, always ensure you leave at least three to four acres for trees”.
	[Laughter.] It was a different time. Small gardens do not normally have four acres sitting idle, but at one point or another most of us will plant a tree, so this is a lesson we can learn. As the Institute of Chartered Foresters has pointed out, the difficulty is that, whatever we do now, the arrival of more pests and diseases is inevitable. We therefore require new and more resources, if we are to get to grips with this growing problem, and we need to build greater resilience into our woods and forests.
	DEFRA had reallocated £8 million over four years for new research into tree health. In the context of this discussion, that is not enough. Let me put that figure into perspective. The annual cost to UK forestry from pests and diseases has been put at about £130 million. That is bound to be an underestimate, reflecting the low value we attach to trees, not just in industry but culturally, socially, environmentally and so on. If the Asian longhorn beetle were to become established in the UK, based on the experience of the US authorities in eradicating it, it would cost £1.3 billion to attempt to do the same here —and there would be no guarantee of success either.

Julian Lewis: As part of a solution, is my hon. Friend advocating restrictions on imports, not just for ash but for other varieties of trees and shrubs?

Zac Goldsmith: Yes. We know the benefits of trade, but they pale in comparison with the costs of unwanted stowaways, so we need to take a far stricter approach to restricting imports, particularly for larger trees, which have become increasingly fashionable. The ones with large earth balls allow even greater opportunity for the introduction of unwanted species.
	In his written ministerial statement on Friday, the Secretary of State said that he was prepared to consider radical proposals. I want to add one thing. As well as encouraging more local sourcing of trees and greater vigilance by the horticultural trade, I urge the Government at least to consider requiring the relevant horticultural sectors to contribute more to the cost of inspection services and forestry research. With 90% of invasive tree pests and disease attributed to imports, the horticultural and landscaping sectors should surely bear a proportion of the costs of preventing and containing outbreaks. It is a sad reflection on successive Governments that it has taken this tragedy to focus minds on the issue of tree diseases. This must be a turning point.

Barry Gardiner: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who made many of the points I wished to make.
	Serious and genuine questions need answering about the genesis of Chalara fraxinea in the UK. Did the Horticultural Trades Association warning in 2009 go unheeded by DEFRA officials? Were Ministers made aware of that warning? When they were informed on 3 April of the infection in Buckinghamshire, why did they not impose a movement ban? When Crowders nursery in Lincolnshire notified officials in June this year that the disease was found in 15 of its trees, did DEFRA officials really issue it with a notice to stop it taking action? Did they put trade rules above environmental
	health? When the disease began to take hold in Poland in 1992 and other parts of continental Europe later on, did the EU take adequate steps to regulate and control its spread?
	Is it credible to claim that wind-blown spores reached the UK from across the sea, from Denmark, given that scientific advice states that wind-blown spores can spread 20 to 30 km per year and that local spread may be via wind, rain, splash or even transmission by insects, but that over longer distances the risk of disease spread is most likely to be through the movement of diseased ash plants? Given that the UK introduced national measures to prevent the entry and spread of the disease on October 29, why did it claim that it could not do so to nurseries and growers previously? Did UK nurseries that became aware of the danger of Chalara fraxinea then stop importing seedlings from suppliers in infected countries, or did they rely on Government advice, rather than their own trade association?
	All those questions will no doubt eventually be answered, and no doubt not all of them without embarrassment to politicians, officials and the industry. My focus today, however, is on examining the response that the Government must make to the increasing threat that our landscape and biodiversity face from climate change and the new vectors of disease that climate change has brought with it. In its excellent report published earlier this year, the Independent Panel on Forestry specifically addressed the need
	“to see our wooded landscapes, in both rural and urban settings, being better protected from, and more resilient to future risks such as climate change, pests and diseases.”
	It specifically recommends that the Government
	“should speed up delivery of the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Action Plan by additional investment in research on tree and woodland diseases, resilience and biosecurity controls.”
	The key question arises: have they speeded up the delivery of the action plan? I remind the House that the body meant to examine this was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2010. The key diseases and pest identified at that time were sudden oak death syndrome, oak processionary moth and Phytophthora ramorum in larch. I believe that Chalara fraxinea was mentioned only as a disease predominantly in Europe that might manifest itself in the UK.
	Perhaps one of the more foolish cutbacks imposed by the Government has been the freeze on public information spending. I ask the Minister how on earth the Government propose to combat infectious diseases in plant health if they constrain their own ability to communicate directly with growers and the industry, and rely on the passive mechanism of their own website. It has been estimated that the changing risks arising from climate change and the new vectors of disease will result in a decline in timber yield in England of up to 35% by 2080, according to the Forestry Commission’s report “Climate Change Risk Assessment”, published in February.
	In the past 12 months, the Forestry Commission has reported increasing incidence of Phytophthora lateralis, which attacks Lawson cypress, Phytophthora ramorum, which attacks beech and rhododendron—itself a non-native invasive species, but now a part of the UK landscape—acute oak decline and Cryphonectria parasitica, which affects sweet chestnut. To these diseases, we must add pests such as the Asian longhorn beetle in broadleaf woodland,
	the pine tree lappet moth on native heath land, and oak processionary moth in beech and hornbeam—to name only a few of the most serious new threats.
	The number of outbreaks of these pests and diseases has risen more than twelvefold over the past 40 years. It is one thing to identify these risks to our landscape, but it is quite another to develop a mitigation and adaptation plan to combat the way in which they might impact on our biodiversity and on the ecosystem services that our forests provide. Such a plan will not be cheap. Last year in the United States, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s eradication programme for the Asian longhorn beetle alone cost US$33 million.
	I urge the Government to understand that it is not enough to have a plan to tackle Chalara fraxinea. They must develop a framework in which all the new vectors of risk that threaten our landscape can be tackled. That means having a clear understanding of the value of the ecosystem services that our trees and forests provide. The Government must look to the national biodiversity action plan and the national ecosystem assessment for a blueprint for a comprehensive response. The key message of the UK national ecosystem assessment begins:
	“The natural world, its biodiversity and its constituent ecosystems are critically important to our well-being and economic prosperity, but are consistently undervalued in conventional economic analyses and decision making.”
	Natural capital has not been properly accounted for, and the services that our forests provide through provisioning, habitat for pollinators, watershed protection and soil stabilisation are considered—

Nigel Evans: Order.

George Freeman: I speak as the Member of Parliament for Mid Norfolk, which sits right at the heart of the Norfolk cluster of the disease, and as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on agricultural science, which is taking a close interest in the matter. I know that all colleagues agree that this outbreak is a serious problem for our forestry industry and our landscape. I welcome the urgency of the reaction shown by the Secretary of State and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team, and the professionalism with which they have handled the issue. More than 100,000 trees were felled in the summer, and the biggest ever survey of ash trees has been conducted. We have also seen several Cobra meetings, a national summit and an immediate ban on imports.
	Outbreaks of disease that affect our biodiversity are never easy to manage, and it ill behoves the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) to criticise the Government in the way she did. Her words were somewhat at odds with the reaction of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who I think all colleagues would agree has dealt with the matter in an extremely responsible way. He has also sat in the Chamber today and listened to the entire debate.
	The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) is a former forestry envoy, and it was interesting that he devoted his speech largely to criticising the Government, rather than talking about the responsibility of the previous Administration. The truth is that this is a wake-up call
	for us all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) has said, and it is unhelpful wilfully, negligently or merely incompetently to distort the scientific evidence, to peddle petty personal conspiracy theories or to scaremonger.
	I welcome the Minister’s clear, careful account of the issue. I particularly welcome his reassurance that the disease is not spreading, and that funding for plant health has not been cut—indeed, it has increased. I strongly endorse his acknowledgement of the role of the many voluntary groups and charities that have helped to support the Department’s work. The key now is to focus on what we can do to prevent the spread of the disease. We must use the British science base to explore all possible avenues—not least, resistance—and to put in place a proper framework for biosecurity.
	The Government have taken a series of important steps in relation to prevention, and it is important to acknowledge the Minister’s assertion that the disease is not spreading now. We have some time in which to put in place a proper framework, which is why a responsible reaction from Members on both sides of the House is important. I also welcome the launch of the tree health action plan and the imposition by the Secretary of State of an immediate ban on imports. Unfortunately, however, the scientific evidence shows that because the disease has been allowed to incubate in this country for many years—probably between 10 and 15—we might not be able to eradicate it. Our ash population could be facing a serious epidemic.

Therese Coffey: Seven or eight outbreaks of the disease have been identified in mature woodlands in my constituency, yet in one of those woodlands, no ash trees have been planted for 20 years. Is it not therefore plausible to suggest that it could be carried in on the wind or by birds, especially in the light of the maps of the infected sites?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point based on the evidence in her own constituency, which also sits at the heart of the East Anglian cluster. She allows me to draw attention to the map, which is extremely compelling. It shows that 90% of all incidences of the disease are down the east coast, and most of those are on the bit of the east coast that is closest to Europe and that is affected by the prevailing winds from the east.
	I am quite pessimistic about the long-term prospect of our controlling and stopping the disease, but there is a glimmer of optimism in the science of resistance, and it is to that subject that I shall now turn. There are signs that some of our older ash trees might have developed a resistance to the disease, and we now have an opportunity to show scientific leadership by throwing as much resource as possible into identifying a solution.

Tom Harris: May I make a small technical point? The hon. Gentleman just mentioned prevailing winds from the east, but I think that he meant the west.

George Freeman: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not spent enough time in the east of East Anglia, where there are often winds from the north and from the east.

Tom Harris: Prevailing winds?

George Freeman: I stand corrected if I said “prevailing”. There are frequently winds from the east and the north-east and, as the map demonstrates, it is perfectly possible that the disease could have been carried over from mainland Europe.
	The scientific research into resistance offers us an important opportunity to identify genetic markers and traits that would allow us to establish a breeding stock of clean, new ash strains, and to unlock as much funding as possible from the European budget to support UK leadership in that field. This is an opportunity for us to promote British plant and forestry science in the context of the European market. I should like to make a small plea to the Minister on behalf of Norfolk. It is perhaps the worst-affected county. It is also home to the John Innes Institute and the Norwich research park, and if there is any scientific work to be done in this regard, I should like us to be at the front of the queue. Our county has a lot to offer.

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend has considerable knowledge of these matters, and I am sure he is aware that where the disease has been established for longer, there is a greater chance of finding resistant varieties. The Poles believe that they might have some resistant varieties, but there is now great disappointment in continental Europe because it was thought that we might have resistant varieties because there was no incidence of the disease here.

George Freeman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State. I am sure that the Minister will pick up on her extremely well-made point.
	In the context of biosecurity in the UK, this is a wake-up call for us all. For far too long, we have not taken our biosecurity seriously enough. Over the past 15 years, we have seen a significant—and generally all to the good—globalisation of trade in commodities and products. We have also seen substantial climate change.

Neil Carmichael: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must have a clear understanding of the threats to our biosecurity, and that we should develop international contacts to enable us to identify those threats?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend makes a good point.
	This outbreak presents us with an opportunity to establish our leadership in this important area of science. Over the past 15 years, we have seen a huge globalisation of trade in agriculture, plants and other commodities, as well as substantial climate change. That changes the context in which we should view the import and export of those goods. The UK’s biosecurity is of strategic national importance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park eloquently pointed out. Colleagues who have visited Australia and the USA recently will know how seriously those and other countries take these matters. A person can hardly leave an aircraft without being sprayed, disinfected and checked, and without having their luggage checked for seeds. The outbreak represents a wake-up call for us in that context as well.
	I welcome the Secretary of State’s strong leadership on this matter, and his highlighting of the potential for Britain to grasp the nettle and set out a new framework for biosecurity. If we can draw on our strengths in plant science, we will be able to turn this crisis to at least some advantage for the UK, and to establish ourselves once again as an island of biosecurity in a Europe that is awash with a number of plant and animal diseases, to the benefit of our landscape and of our agricultural and forestry industries.

Caroline Lucas: I was glad to hear the Minister say that he was determined to learn the lessons of this outbreak, because inadequate biosecurity has been a problem under successive Governments. Instead of arguing about wind direction, we need to ask more fundamental questions about the role of trade and imports. The present situation reminds me of the stories that were put about on bird flu when we were first invited to believe that it was spread purely by wild birds, rather than, as it turned out, as a result of the increasing international trade in poultry and eggs.
	In April 2012, in a paper in the scientific journal Nature, scientists warned of wider threats, pointing out that the past two decades have seen an increasing number of virulent infectious diseases in natural populations and managed landscapes. The authors warn that in both animals and plants, an unprecedented number of fungal and fungal-like diseases have recently caused some of the most severe die-offs and extinctions ever witnessed in wild species. That has serious implications both for wildlife and food security.
	On the import of trees, a strong scientific case is being built for more radical controls to tighten biosecurity. Hon. Members may have read in the press the views of senior scientist Dr Stephen Woodward, a specialist in tree disease research at the university of Aberdeen. He advises that the Government must now ban imports or use quarantine for other iconic trees such as oak, pine and plane if they are to be saved from disease. I believe that we have to take that call seriously. Dr Martin Ward, DEFRA’s chief plant officer is also warning that ash dieback is just one of what he calls a “tidal wave of pathogens” that are arriving in Europe. He rightly describes the situation as terrifying, and he warns:
	“Unless we have better bio security in the EU it will be very difficult to stop them coming in.”
	The scale of the trade in plants for forestry planting is absolutely vast. Approximately 10 million plants are imported for forestry planting every year. That means we need to take much more account than we have done until now of the potential for environmental damage from such trade. For example, in Australia, there are much stricter rules around quarantine, and my understanding is that what happens there is much more effective than anything we have in place in Europe. If plants that could be known to be carrying pathogens were quarantined, we might be able stop at least some of these diseases spreading and slow down others. The case for an import ban, if quarantine conditions are not met, must also be thoroughly and urgently considered.
	We also need to look at why we have exposed ourselves to the risks that imports bring. Hon. Members may have read reports of the comments by Dr Jon Heuch, a member of the Forestry Commission’s biosecurity
	programme. He reports that the seed of the ash is frequently sent abroad from the UK and the trees grown from these seeds are then imported back and sold as having UK provenance. Indeed, there seems to be an extraordinary trade in plants and saplings that are grown in other parts of Europe simply because mass production there means that it is cheaper. Half a million ash trees are imported in the UK every year for use in woodland and gardens. The Horticultural Trades Association admits that many saplings are labelled as British because customers like “local provenance”.

Margaret Ritchie: Considering the importance of forestry and woodland as a tourist resource, does the hon. Lady agree with me that it was rather odd that it took nine months from the onset of the disease here for DEFRA to effect a ban? Would she like to shed some light on that in the context of plant biosecurity?

Caroline Lucas: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I hope she will forgive me if I agree with her point, but stress that what I want to underline right now—we have already had quite a lot of focus on the timetable and how long it took DEFRA and the Government to declare an emergency—is the central issue of the imports. I am really concerned that we are going to overlook the role of trade and imports when it comes to the vulnerability of the UK in particular and Europe in general to more and more of these diseases that are coming towards us.
	Let me say a few words about the forestry grants system. In a sense, it also seems perversely to encourage greater imports. As I understand it, grant agreements specify the type of trees and how much will be spent, including the conditions for the money and specific type of tree, but this could be agreed much more quickly so that UK growers have time to be able to grow them here in the UK rather than feeling forced to source them from abroad. Because the Government tend to agree to these grant schemes very late, it does not give enough time for confidence to grow in the UK market. When they are eventually agreed, we do not have time to grow the saplings, so the foresters go abroad. The Government could usefully look at the whole issue of the forestry grants, and some of their perverse implications when it comes to promoting more and more of this sourcing of our saplings from overseas. Once the seed is grown in the UK, it then goes overseas and then we bring it back again. It seems a crazy system, and it is also very costly when we understand what it is doing to our vulnerability.
	I want the Minister to look at two other pieces of legislation, which, although they deal with non-native species, could have some useful read-across for us. There is a forthcoming EU legal instrument, due in draft imminently, which will look at forestry in particular. Scotland has new INNS—invasive, non-native species—legislation, which is far ahead of what we have here in the UK when it comes to biosecurity.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will respond positively to early-day motion 663, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). Since he did not mention it, I will underline it for him now, because it calls precisely for increased resources to ensure both a rapid response to other disease outbreaks and greater screening and control of imports to minimise the spectre of disease.
	Finally, let me underline what other Members have said, which is that it is not enough for the Secretary of State to say that he will move resources from elsewhere in DEFRA to deal with this problem. If he does that, we will not know what robbing Peter to pay Paul will actually mean in practice. We need to find new resources to tackle this issue; we need to look again at the resources for the Forestry Commission; and we need to learn the lessons so that we have much stronger biosecurity in the future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. As long as Members do not exceed four minutes, all who want to speak can participate in the debate.

Caroline Spelman: I do not believe the response to this disease will be improved by playing a blame game or by a partisan approach. The seriousness with which Members of all parties take this issue is evidence of how determined we are to tackle it.
	It is to the credit of the Secretary of State, who cannot be with us today, that he has acknowledged that his predecessors acted on the advice they received at the time—essentially the same advice as was outlined by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) who speaks for the Opposition—that ash dieback was listed as being absent from the country. When I came into office, the list of serious exotic diseases brought to my attention included sudden oak death syndrome, bleeding canker in chestnuts, red band needle blight, oak processionary moth, as well as Phytophthora ramorum, which has meant that hundreds of thousands of larches have already been felled.
	My response was to produce a tree action plan on tree health and biosecurity—so the fightback has started. In the elaboration of this plan, tree experts provided a horizon scan of upcoming diseases, which we could build into our decision making. Members who return to this country from a third world country will have heard the DEFRA announcement on planes, which warns travellers not to import plant material into this country. That is just one of the improved biosecurity measures.
	I have heard the argument that the cuts are to blame for the proliferation of ash dieback. I think we have now satisfactorily demonstrated that an extra £8 million was spent—on top of the protected budget for tree health research. I warn the Opposition to be careful with the argument that it is all about money, because no amount of money will stop wind blowing from continental Europe bearing diseases in this direction. That is just a fact.
	The importing of ash is a paradox. Growers were supposed to have asked my predecessor, and challenged the Government, to introduce a ban. What I fail to understand is why, if they saw that as a risk, they continued to import the ash. I did not see that letter either.

Hilary Benn: I want to avoid misunderstanding. The Horticultural Trades Association wrote to the Forestry Commission in autumn 2009. As
	my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) made clear in her speech, I asked DEFRA to check whether I had seen the correspondence, and I had not.

Caroline Spelman: I think that clarity is helpful. I had not seen it either.
	The crux of the problem is misdiagnosis. Ministers do not have microscopes on their desks, so before we single out some hapless scientist in forestry research for blame, we should consider carefully how many other people failed to spot the problem as well. When the first case of the new ash fungus was confirmed, trees were felled as a precautionary measure, and a voluntary ban was put in place straight away, so there was no delay. The key to tackling this disease, as was argued earlier, is to find the resistant varieties.
	Going forward, the EU plant health regime needs reform. Former and present Members of the European Parliament can perhaps help us with that. We stand some chance, as islands, of being able to have better biosecurity, and we need to fight for that now. In parallel with the EU review, the Government updated their own plant health strategy, deploying more inspectors at points of entry to our country to control imports and piloting new tools of detection. Passenger baggage conditions were reviewed; more funding was released for inspection at growing sites; and better co-ordination of research between the Food and Environment Research Association and the Forestry Commission was achieved. Common sense should tell us that, if tree experts, dedicated woodmen and woodland charities all failed to spot its presence earlier, this disease must be hard to diagnose. It is not helped by the fact that there are other forms of ash dieback, and that other tree diseases were listed ahead of ash dieback as priorities.
	If ash dieback had been seen as the big threat we now believe it to be, all relevant stakeholders would have signalled that to me in the numerous face-to-face meetings I had with them during consultations on the public forest estate, or on the extreme weather conditions we experienced in 2011 and 2012. Meetings with the chairman of the Forestry Commission did not have this item on the agenda.

Caroline Lucas: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: I am not going to give way again. Moreover, one might have expected the trade press to have expressed its concern on the front pages of its publications.
	We all need to share some responsibility and to redouble our efforts to spot the disease. I applaud the volunteers who have helped with the unprecedented survey of our woods and trees. As my action plan stated, collaborative working—of landowners, industry, academia, civil society and Government—is required better to protect the health of our nation’s trees. We need to pull together, not against each other, in the fight for tree health.

Nigel Evans: There are 10 minutes left. Perhaps three and bit minutes each, and then everybody will get in.

Roger Williams: I am very pleased that the debate has adopted a rather calmer and more constructive tone than the one it started with. Trying unsuccessfully to land political blows on the Department will do nothing to sort out the problems we face today. I compare this situation with the time when I entered this House and foot and mouth was rampant; a much more considered tone was adopted then.
	I want to emphasise the international approach to dealing with these problems. The international community is much better organised at dealing with animal health than with plant health. The whole scientific scene seems to put much more emphasis on animal science than plant science, and we probably do not have the botanists we need to address these problems.
	We have rightly been told that in Australia and the United States, there is much better organisation and greater care taken in ensuring that those who enter the country bring no plant or animal material with them. In this country, we have the international observatory for foot and mouth, so whenever that disease is identified across the world, the variety in question is brought here and compared against other varieties. We need something of that nature to deal with plant health, and I am sure that Britain would be very well placed to achieve that.
	I want to end on a fairly optimistic note. The disease has been compared to Dutch elm disease, but there are considerable differences. For instance, the English elm is reproduced by suckers, which means that almost every tree has the same genome as any other. Therefore, if one tree is susceptible to the fungus attack, all the trees will be. However, ash is propagated by cross-pollination, which means that there are a great variety of genetic types. As has already been said, some resistant varieties can be identified. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) pointed out that we have the skills in this country to do the plant-breeding work that could yield a tremendous benefit not only for this country’s ash population, but right across Europe and the world.
	We face a particularly difficult disease that could affect our whole landscape, but we are in a better position to deal with it than we were with Dutch elm disease.

Neil Parish: It is very sad that the House of Commons cannot come together today to tackle this disease. The Opposition’s attempt to land a blow on the Government in this regard is absolute nonsense. There is no doubt that, as the relevant map shows, a lot of the disease comes across from the continent. No Government, irrespective of their political persuasion, can stop what blows on the wind. Therefore, we must concentrate on how we are going to deal with this disease. We must look for ash trees that will be immune in future, so that we can take the seeds from them and grow them. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) said, we do not want to see the decimation that we experienced with Dutch elm disease. Indeed, I saw that on my own farm: the decimation of massive trees that were hundreds of years old. We have never really recovered from that: every time a tree grows, it catches the disease again perhaps 10 or 15 years later. We want to ensure that the ash tree is there for the future.
	We must also be certain that the single market, the great wonder of the European Union, is not abused. The trouble is that no Government can stop the import of ash trees until they have proved that they have the disease, and by that time it is too late. That really has to be put right. We are surrounded by water—let us hope that not every disease can be blown across the channel—and Britain could develop the same methods that Australia and New Zealand have developed in trying to keep disease out of the country. We must ensure that we breed ash trees in this country—that we do not export the seed to Holland, where the trees are then grown, and then import the trees back again. The industry itself must take some responsibility here. When the disease is on the continent, it is absolute nonsense to keep this trade going backwards and forwards. Given the existence of the single market, it is very difficult to stop it, but we need to change things.
	I want Britain to have beautiful trees into the future. As Members have pointed out, there are many diseases out there that we need to tackle, so let us adopt a positive approach. I praise what Ministers and the Secretary of State are doing to analyse where all the diseased trees are located, so that we can act quickly. We cannot simply stop the disease by chopping down all the ash trees that have it—the saplings, yes; but the mature trees, we cannot. Let us hope that some of those trees survive and that from those, we can grow the great ash trees that we want to see.
	The lesson in all this is that we cannot keep exporting and importing trees, bringing disease with them. I look forward to a positive message from Ministers on research and maintaining “fortress Britain” so far as growing trees and keeping out disease is concerned, and then perhaps repopulating trees across Europe. I repeat my first point: I am very sad that the Opposition have made such a thing of this. I respect what the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) did while he was Secretary of State; he has taken a much more responsible attitude.

Nigel Evans: To resume his seat no later than 6.40, Dr Julian Lewis.

Julian Lewis: In the two minutes remaining to me I would like to say that, despite the rancour between the Front Benchers at the beginning of the debate about whether the disease was blown in on the wind or imported, in the letter the Secretary of State sent to colleagues, he took quite a balanced view. He said:
	“The infections in the nurseries were caused by imported plants; those in the wider environment have no identifiable links to the nurseries and are likely to have been carried on the wind over the Channel.”
	I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here today to develop remarks that were apparently attributed to him by The Times. It stated on Saturday that he proposed to “take on the EU”, and that:
	“He warned that the free movement of trees and plants within the single market was putting the British countryside at risk, and pledged to challenge European laws to prevent more diseases from entering the country.”
	That shows at least an acknowledgement of the significance of the element of the problem that has been imported.
	It is right that I should get the tail-end Charlie slot in this debate, because fortunately, the wonderful New Forest does not have many ash trees. However, we could be next in line, and this is where the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is so important. There is a vast array of pestilences and diseases just waiting to hit us. According to yesterday’s edition of The Sunday Telegraph, the Woodland Trust now says that for the jubilee woodland project, it will use species such as oak and birch instead of ash. Well, if something were to hit oak and birch, the effect on the New Forest would be devastating. Therefore, I make one simple point: it is one thing to try retrospectively to address the problem with ash, but what we have to do is proactively to put measures in place—this is what all the experts are telling me—to prevent the importation of other diseases in the future.

Tom Harris: May I begin with an apology to those on the Treasury Bench? I have a mild chest infection, so if I cough at any point, I would not want the spores to carry across the debating Chamber and then for me to be blamed in a couple of days’ time if they come down with the dreaded lurgy. May I also say how delighted I am that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) will be responding on behalf of the Government? I look forward to that, as I know that he takes a close and personal interest in our country’s forests.
	I have enjoyed today’s debate, almost as much as I have enjoyed watching the permanently confused faces of the Ministers. Some excellent contributions have not only highlighted Government failings, but have offered us a way forward, and I hope that the Government have listened. This dreadful disease will subject 80 million ash trees to a slow decline over the coming decades, changing our landscape for ever. It will hit the pockets of the nursery owners, the timber merchants and the taxpayer, and it will wreak untold damage on our biodiversity, pushing species that rely on ash towards extinction.
	The reality of the problem in front of us is stark, and it was ably described by the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). Ash dieback disease has been confirmed in 155 sites, including 15 nurseries that had imported infected plants and 55 plantations that had received young trees. Most worryingly, it has now been found in 65 established woodland sites. Scientific opinion is, sadly, now unanimous: trying to stop the disease is a lost cause.
	So how did we get to this situation? I ask Government Members who complain about political points being made during this debate to have a quick look at the letter they received from their Whips Office, as it will have the words “Opposition day debate” on it. It is the job of my party to oppose the Government, and that is what Labour Members are doing. It is our job to expose the failings of Ministers when that is necessary, and it is necessary now.
	Despite recent personnel changes, it is not difficult to identify Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers. They can be identified by their
	permanently bewildered and startled expressions, and by their tendency, as they stagger from urgent question to statement and back again, to mutter curses against their civil servants along the lines of, “Why wasn’t I told about this before now?” What a terrific record Ministers in this Department have. Having refused to ban wild animals in circuses because it might conflict with their human rights, and having postponed the badger cull because no one told the Department that London was hosting the 2012 Olympic games, DEFRA Ministers found themselves in charge of a new national crisis when the fungus that causes ash dieback was discovered in England. What could possibly go wrong?
	As soon as the UK presence of Chalara was confirmed to Ministers, on 3 April, they leapt into action in a veritable blur of activity. The alarm was raised and, with breathtaking urgency and efficiency, the dynamism for which DEFRA is known became all too evident. Before we knew it, a mere five months later, a consultation was launched. On behalf of a grateful nation, let me just say, “Phew!”
	The Secretary of State, sadly, misspoke when he told the House:
	“The minute we heard about this, we launched a consultation.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 1066.]
	That would be an absurd statement, heavy with subconscious irony, even if it were true—but it was not. There was a completely unacceptable and unnecessary delay of five months between Ministers being told about the Chalara infection and the consultation being launched—why? That is the equivalent of seeing a burglar breaking into a neighbour’s house and responding by writing a stern and urgent letter to the local police to ask their opinion on local crime-prevention initiatives, and then posting it with a second-class stamp.
	Of course, the current Secretary of State cannot be held entirely to blame for his Department’s peculiar reluctance to act when it should have done so seven months ago. [Interruption.] The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), is chuntering from a sedentary position—highly appropriate. After all, the current Secretary of State has been in his job only since early September. Had he been in post back in April, and had a civil servant perhaps dared to interrupt the latest of his many graphic demonstrations of, “How to drown a badger the proper way” with news of the Chalara infection, he might have acted immediately, and not with a consultation but with an immediate import ban and a public information campaign. Yet, when the ministerial car dropped him at DEFRA for the first time 10 weeks ago, and he walked into his new office clutching his good luck card from the Northern Ireland Office and his Brian May dartboard, was he even briefed as to the seriousness of this infestation? If he was, did he even ask officials’ advice as to whether he could end the consultation early and impose an immediate ash import ban? Did he even question the reasons behind having a consultation in the first place? Surely he recognised that every day the consultation lasted was an extra day in which the Chalara spores could, and certainly would, spread.
	On Friday 2 November, seven months after Ministers were told, the Secretary of State finally found time in his diary to convene a Cobra meeting to come up with a plan to respond to the disease. But on the same day he used the functions and resources of his private office
	and the civil service to write an exclusive briefing letter for the eyes of colleagues on the Government side of the House only. That explains to the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) why the words he read out were completely new to Opposition Members. We were not worthy of receiving this great letter from the Secretary of State—only Conservative and Lib Dem MPs were. I ask the Under-Secretary, because I know him to be a reasonable man, whether he honestly believes that when his boss decides to brief only Conservative and Lib Dem MPs, that is a proper action for a Secretary of State to take. I think I know what the answer will be publicly, but the Under-Secretary is an honourable and understanding gentleman, and I am sure that he understands that that was a gross disservice to the House. This not an issue that demands a secretive, high-handed approach. This is an issue that demands that everybody involved from the top of government to the general public, and everybody from across the political spectrum, pulls together and takes the necessary steps to fight against a destructive and devastating disease. With that in mind, will the Under-Secretary now promise to keep Opposition Members informed throughout this process? Everyone in this House has a right to know what is going on, as do our constituents.
	On the topic of sharing intelligence, why was advice to tree growers and the public on the best way to spot the disease and prevent it from spreading not issued immediately after Chalara’s presence in the UK was confirmed? Does the Minister seriously believe that the delay was acceptable? Is he telling the House that if he could turn back the clock, he would do the same thing all over again? What early estimates has the Department made of the cost to the Exchequer of fighting this disease? The Minister of State said that lessons will be learned. How can lessons be learned if no mistakes have been made? If mistakes have been made, what mistakes were they? I have no doubt that Ministers will do what they always do whenever the Opposition have the bare-faced cheek to oppose them on anything: blame the last Labour government—I prefer the phrase “most recent Labour Government” to “last Labour Government”. But perplexing as it is, these Ministers are in government and we are not, and it is they who, at least occasionally, must take responsibility for the running of the country. If they do not blame us—and they will—they will blame something else, such as the weather or the wind. Science says that it is a possibility that the spores were blown across the sea from the continent to the UK. That small possibility has been turned by every Government MP into a cast-iron fact; it is a “fact” that is simply not supported by science.
	Ministers have a great deal to answer for. That is less a partisan political point than a simple statement of democratic principle: this happened on their watch and it is not good enough for them to try to wriggle out of the responsibility they bear. The inaction, the dithering and the delay Ministers have shown is tantamount to a dereliction of duty, and the mishandling of this sorry episode is symptomatic of the dearth of leadership and the abundance of incompetence inside the Department. Government inaction has left our forests exposed. Government ineptitude has put us in the terrible situation where the disease is beyond containment and spreading rapidly. It is now the Government’s duty to face up to their responsibilities, admit that they got this one wrong
	and work towards overcoming the huge environmental, economic and ecological impact this terrible disease will inevitably bring.

Richard Benyon: Despite some of the remarks that have been made, this has been an interesting debate with some good contributions from Members on both sides of the House. The ash is one of the best-loved species of tree in this country—it is one of my favourites. It is fundamental to our landscape, our ecology and our ecosystems. It is not just an important economic and environmental issue; it is deeply emotive, too. The House should remember that we are at our best when we join together to face a national crisis of this kind, and at our worst when we seek to trivialise and to make cheap party political points.
	The Opposition could have handled the debate differently. Sadly, they have cheapened the subject through the wording of the motion, which they know cannot be supported. They could have been bigger than that, treating the matter as a serious one that concerns people outside this building: not just rural communities but urban communities that are worried about the loss of a much-loved tree. It is a great shame they did not do that.
	Let me address one point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State updated the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on this issue on 6 November. He met the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) to discuss ash dieback, also on 6 November, and the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on 7 November. He issued a science factsheet, sent to all Members, on 7 November and published a written ministerial statement on 9 November. I am beginning to wonder what more he could have done to keep hon. Members informed.
	For those of us old enough to remember Dutch Elm disease in the 1970s, which was mentioned by many hon. Members, the prospect of our ash trees suffering the same fate is deeply depressing. Although the scientists tell us that we will not be able to eradicate Chalara, they have also given us hope. By acting now and learning from experiences in Europe, we might be able to slow its spread and find resistant strains. To do that, we need the resolve to work together. We should not waste energy blaming each other. Above all, we must mobilise all those whose care for these trees in both town and countryside can assist Government in finding a way forward.
	Government cannot do this alone. Industry must be involved, and land managers, environmental groups and the public can all play their part. We know that there is a real will out there to do that. We will play our part, too. We are investing in world-class research and surveillance and improving our ability to diagnose the disease quickly. We are putting tools and advice in the hands of those who live and work among the nation’s woodlands.
	I particularly pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), who pointed out that, long before Chalara hit the headlines, the Government recognised the increasing threat to the health of our trees. In October 2011, we launched the tree health and
	plant biosecurity action plan, which sets out a UK-wide integrated approach to dealing with serious tree pests and pathogens. The plan included a commitment for £7 million of new funding for tree health research, which was increased to £8 million earlier this year and is available until 2015-16. That has unlocked a further £4 million from research councils in support of long-term support initiatives, led by Living With Environmental Change. We have grasped the very good points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who, along with other colleagues, addressed important points about the potential threat from other diseases and how we must work to see what is coming and to be better prepared for such diseases.
	Let me comment on one point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). We convened Cobra because this is an important issue, both for the rural economy and for the environment. It is important that we draw together a range of different stakeholders and players, particularly from local government, as has been made clear. We should not quibble about why we are doing that; it is a serious matter and it is important to see the involvement of government across the piece.
	Other Members raised important questions about other tree diseases, such as Asian longhorn beetle, Phytophthora ramorum, oak processionary moth and sudden oak death syndrome. Those are all serious. I agree with hon. Members who have raised points about the need to promote home-grown industries for saplings and plant propagation. We must take that forward in the work we do.
	I do not hold with those who believe that there is some dark conspiracy. I can honestly say that the scientists I have met to discuss the issue are not the sort of people to be pushed around by politicians to make points that would assist them. They give us advice and we take it; we have had some very good advice on this important issue.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who stated accurately that such outbreaks should be a wake-up call to us all. He gave a responsible message from one of the areas most affected by the disease and talked about the importance of a science of resistance, promoting a centre of excellence in this country that can take forward work in UK plant sciences. There is a good economic reason for doing that. I have just returned from New Zealand and completely concur with the many points made about countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the United States. DEFRA has made big steps forward in trying to get that message across and my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden mentioned the warnings that are now given on aeroplanes about the importance of biosecurity. We can do much more not just in the United Kingdom but in Europe.
	I take the point that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion made about the grant schemes. We will consider that. When we get resistant species, some work could be done to encourage people to plant them as part of their grant schemes.
	The key message that the House needs to recognise is that the Government acted straight away to deal with Chalara fraxinea as soon as it was identified in England.
	We will focus our efforts on reducing the rate of the spread of the disease. We will continue to trace recently planted saplings and nursery stock and will destroy infected trees, as we have been doing through the summer. We are getting the public to help to identify diseased trees through raising awareness. We are looking for genetic strains that are resistant to the disease and getting land managers to look for healthy trees in affected areas.
	We have taken swift action to identify where the trees were being sent to and arranged for infected trees to be destroyed. We have worked with the industry to deal with infected plants and encouraged best practice in sourcing plants. We have been the first to produce pest-risk analysis on the issue, ensuring that our approach is technically and scientifically robust. We have provided all relevant groups with an opportunity to contribute to how things are being handled through a consultation process.
	We are now doing all we can to protect our native ash trees. A ban on imports is now in place, well before the start of the planting season. We are taking the threat to ash trees extremely seriously. Work is being done to control the spread of the disease; we have undertaken an unprecedented, rapid and intensive survey of Britain’s established woodlands; and much more action is being taken besides. However, although there has been a lot of urgent action to get a grip on the problem, more can be done.
	There is a long-term commitment to tackling this disease, and it has made us take a long, hard look at the way we respond to plant health risks more widely. Other threats, as hon. Members have said, are on the horizon. As the Secretary of State announced on Friday, we are reviewing the current arrangements and are prepared to introduce radical reforms if necessary.
	Key work is being done by Professor Ian Boyd’s Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Taskforce, which is made up of an eminent group of scientists. Its interim report will be available at the end of the month. The Secretary of State has given a commitment to update the House on proposals for controlling Chalara.
	The motion is nothing but a cheap party political game when we are dealing with a problem. I urge the House to reject it.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 204, Noes 271.

Question accordingly negatived.

Fuel Duty

Lindsay Hoyle: I inform the House that the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister has been selected.

Cathy Jamieson: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that, at a time when the cost of living is rising and our economic recovery is fragile, it cannot be right to increase fuel duty by the planned 3 pence in January 2013; calls upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cancel this rise in fuel duty at least until next April; and believes that this change could be funded by clamping down on known tax avoidance schemes.
	Everyone in the House knows that families are feeling the squeeze, that low and middle-income families are hardest hit, that prices are rising higher than wages, that small businesses are struggling and that the economy is still fragile, all of which makes it exactly the wrong time to hike up fuel costs. At the outset, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to join us and back our call to delay the January fuel duty rise. I particularly appeal to hon. Members who have rightly voiced concerns in recent months to do so. Difficult decisions have to be made to get the deficit down—we understand that. Yes, there were times in the past when Labour put up fuel duty, and no one disputes that.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Cathy Jamieson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who I am sure is going to tell me that he supports our motion.

Andrew Selous: Will the hon. Lady tell the House how many times her Government put up fuel duty?

Cathy Jamieson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that on something like 13 occasions the Labour Government decided not to put up fuel duty, to delay an increase or to change it because of economic circumstances, which was absolutely the right thing to do. We looked at the economic circumstances, and made decisions to delay or cancel when that was the right thing to do, including at the height of the economic crisis.

Jim Cunningham: I hope my hon. Friend noted that about a fortnight ago there was an Adjournment debate in the House with cross-party support for a freeze on the increase. Although Conservative Members may go on about the increase under Labour, we must remember that they are in government now and that they could have stopped this 18 months ago.

Cathy Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is regrettable that some hon. Members who only a few weeks ago called for the very thing that our motion calls for now seem to have cold feet. Given that the economic recovery is fragile, the Government should back the motion.

Brian H Donohoe: What is the total taxation on a litre of petrol, how does it affect the general public, and is it something that should be advertised in every forecourt in the land?

Cathy Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, because it is about 81p per litre at the moment. He is absolutely right: when people go to the forecourt to fill up their car, they want to know exactly how much it is going to cost. They do not go to the forecourt and think about what might have been; they think about what the price is in the here and now. Petrol is 15p a litre more than it was at the general election, and it is 5p a litre more than it was in the summer, when the Government last deferred a rise. Let us remember that the Chancellor made that decision after pressure from the Opposition.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Cathy Jamieson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who I am sure is going to tell me how many of his constituents have contacted him asking him to back our motion.

Charlie Elphicke: I am not sure that this will quite fuel the hon. Lady’s bandwagon, but why did the Labour Government, in their closing stages, include in their Budget six further rises for this Parliament?

Cathy Jamieson: It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s notice that his party is now in government, and it has to take responsibility for its actions, including the Chancellor’s VAT rise, which has added 3p to the price of a litre of petrol, costing motorists on average over £100 more.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Cathy Jamieson: May I make a bit more progress, as we want to hear what the Government are doing? Their own figures tell us that the price of petrol is now more than 136p a litre. In my constituency, prices at a rural petrol station at the weekend were 139.9p a litre for petrol, and 144.9p for diesel. Only this morning, I heard a price of 160p a litre in the Scottish highlands.

Alan Reid: When Labour was in power, other island MPs and I consistently went to see Labour Ministers to ask for an island fuel duty discount. It was refused. Within a year, this Government introduced that policy. Will the hon. Lady tell us what the Labour party’s policy is on a rural fuel discount?

Cathy Jamieson: I hope that when he goes back to his area, the hon. Gentleman is able to explain to his constituents why he has not backed the motion tonight.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Lady said at the outset that this is not the time to put up fuel duty. Will she tell us whether, each and every time Labour put up fuel duty over the past 13 years, it was the right thing to do, or do we have great joy in heaven with the repenting of the Labour hordes this evening?

Cathy Jamieson: Once again, I am rather disappointed with the hon. Gentleman’s approach. I should have thought that he, too, would want to be able to go back and tell his constituents that he had supported a motion to ensure that the rise does not go ahead. The tax on a tank of petrol at the general election was £37.60. It has now risen to £40.30, and if the 3p rise goes ahead on 1 January it will rise again to £42.20.

Caroline Lucas: On the day that the International Energy Agency has warned that two thirds of fossil fuels need to remain under the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change, does the hon. Lady not see a contradiction in arguing for lower fuel prices, especially since the cost of motoring has fallen in the past 10 years while the cost of public transport has risen? Would a more consistent position not be to seek to support struggling households directly, using the money—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Lady is testing the patience of the House. It is unfair. We are going to have to introduce a time limit already. If she wishes to speak, would she please put her name down? She cannot make a speech now. Short interventions are needed on both sides

Cathy Jamieson: I gave way because I respect what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has to say, but I hope she will understand the real pressures on families and the pressures that individuals are facing as they try to get to work and go about their business.
	It is not just Labour that is calling for the increase to be postponed. FairFuelUK, backed by the RAC and the Road Haulage Association, among others, has consistently and determinedly campaigned for lower fuel duty.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The public are seldom interested in Opposition day debates, but they are interested in this one. My constituents have contacted me about it. Many organisations have contacted us because they care passionately about the issue. Should the Government not recognise that this is a big worry for all our constituents?

Cathy Jamieson: I hope the Government recognise that this is a big worry for constituents. We are all familiar with the e-mail campaigns and the correspondence that we have had through the FairFuelUK campaigns and from our constituents. FairFuelUK has produced a comprehensive report, which I know it has presented to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It sets out the impact of retaining the January rise, and gives a stark warning that about 35,000 jobs could be at risk.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Cathy Jamieson: No, I want to make a little progress.
	The Federation of Small Businesses says that 85% of its members said that their car or van is crucial or very important to their business, and just over half its members said that rising fuel costs were one of the main concerns for their businesses in the third quarter of 2012.

John Redwood: rose —

Cathy Jamieson: No. I have given way already and I want to make some progress. It is important that people hear why we are proposing the motion tonight.
	Almost 20% of FSB members identified fuel costs as a barrier to growth. Not only those organisations but—[Interruption.] Hon. Members on the Government
	Benches—those who tend to think they are the champions of industry—might want to listen to the voice of industry. The Petrol Retailers Association has reminded us of the impact of VAT and the impact on the price of fuel if the 3p per litre increase goes ahead in January.
	Those are the voices of industry, but it is not just industry that will be affected:
	“We must remember that motorists are not a lobby group. They are mums driving to school, children on buses and pensioners hit by inflation. When the cost of road haulage rises, the price of everything else rises too.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 140WH.]
	Credit where it is due—those are not my words; they are the words of the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) in a Westminster Hall debate in May 2012.

Robert Halfon: I am hugely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, but my constituents in Harlow will have much more trust in the Chancellor, who cut fuel duty last year, which the Opposition opposed, and provided two fuel duty freezes, than in the political opportunism that the hon. Lady is proposing today.

Cathy Jamieson: I am genuinely sorry that the hon. Gentleman adopts that tone because I know that he has worked determinedly to raise the issue. I am sure that his constituents will want to know exactly what the Chancellor is going to do. Our shadow Chancellor has said what he thinks, whereas the Chancellor seems to be debating by a nod and a wink, and nothing is determined.

John Redwood: rose—

Cathy Jamieson: Those on the Government Benches may want to listen to the consumer organisation Which?, which has told us that 85% of people polled recently were worried about the cost of fuel. That is up nine points since the previous poll in July. One in 10 people polled admitted that they had had to dip into savings to meet the costs of motoring. Many of these people rely on their cars to get to work, to get their kids to school, to take up education and training opportunities, or perhaps to care for elderly relatives.
	As I said earlier, these are tough economic times and hard-pressed families out there know that only too well. They are the ones who are suffering most from this out-of-touch Government’s failed austerity plan, which has delivered the longest double-dip recession since the second world war—a plan that is failing on the deficit, with borrowing higher so far this year than last.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Cathy Jamieson: Not only are the Government’s plans failing—they are also deeply unfair.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Cathy Jamieson: I will give way in a moment, but it is important that this is heard.
	The Prime Minister once promised not to balance the books on the backs of the poor. He also says that we’re all in it together, so perhaps the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) would like to tell me what his constituents think should be done in January. Should the 3p rise be delayed?

Marcus Jones: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She said that we should listen to the voice of industry and of consumer groups. Did the Labour party listen to those groups when it put fuel duty up by 55% during its time in government?

Cathy Jamieson: Again, I regret the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. This is one issue on which we had the opportunity to unite and send a message to constituents, to all those who have contacted us and to businesses that are struggling, that the whole House could come together and agree. It is disappointing that the parties on the Government Benches have not done that.
	My constituents and others are disappointed that while the Prime Minister and the Chancellor focus on giving tax cuts to millionaires, millions of families, businesses and pensioners are being forced to pay more. The cuts in child tax credits and child benefit, the hike in VAT and the cuts in age-related personal allowances have hit people hard throughout the country, just at the time when they and the economy need help.
	The Leader of the Opposition has called this slow, remorseless squeeze
	“a quiet crisis that is unfolding day by day in kitchens and living rooms in every town, village and city up and down this country”.
	That is exactly what it is.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Cathy Jamieson: I will give way in a moment.
	I suspect that I can predict what those on the Government Benches are going to say. They will tell us that we should celebrate the fact that the economy is finally out of a double-dip recession and things are back on track. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) is, however, going to tell me how many e-mails and letters he has had, asking him to back the 3p cut.

Mark Spencer: Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that words are cheap and deeds are what count? That is a simple philosophy. Her Government put up the tax and our Government have frozen it. It seems simple to me.

Cathy Jamieson: I agree that words are cheap and deeds are more important. That is why every constituent is going to be looking tonight to see which Lobby hon. Members are walking through and whether they back the delay or not.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Cathy Jamieson: I want to move on, because it is important that we get to the meat of the debate.
	As has been said in earlier discussions on the economy, any recovery we have seen so far is fragile at best. Labour has put forward proposals that we believe the Government should put in place: a jobs plan to boost the economy, including using funds from the 4G mobile auction to build 100,000 affordable homes; a temporary VAT cut, which would cut around 3p off the price of a litre of petrol and give an immediate £450 boost for a couple with children; help for our high streets and pensioners; and a bank bonus tax to fund jobs for young people who are out of work. The Opposition
	believe that the Chancellor should use his autumn statement to help those on low and middle incomes with the rising cost of living.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Cathy Jamieson: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already and want to make some progress.
	We believe that the Chancellor should rethink his plan to give a tax cut to millionaires in April while putting up taxes for pensioners. As the shadow Chancellor announced on Friday, we believe that the Chancellor should cancel the 3p rise in fuel duty planned for January until at least April.

Eilidh Whiteford: Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the unfairest aspects of the planned duty rise is the disproportionate effect of such taxation on folk in rural areas, as they have no alternative forms of transport and have further to travel?

Cathy Jamieson: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. I am certainly well aware of the problems faced by people in rural areas where there might be no alternative. I hope that she will support our motion this evening.
	The Chancellor and the Prime Minister might never have had to worry about the cost of filling up their cars, but millions of people across the country worry about that every day, as we are hearing. To be fair, some Government Members recognise that and have been vocal about it, or at least they were until today, when they suddenly appeared to go quiet.

Russell Brown: Surely this is a no-brainer. If the Chancellor decided before August to freeze fuel duty and not introduce the additional 3p rise, surely the same logic should be used today, when fuel costs even more, and the increase should not be introduced in January.

Cathy Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We have neighbouring constituencies, so I am certainly aware of the difficulties some of his constituents face in trying to access fuel at an affordable cost. He will also be aware that although there have been some price reductions by the big supermarkets, which can afford to use fuel as a loss leader, the small and independent garages, many of which his constituents rely on, do not have that luxury. Many of those small retailers are under increasing pressure as a result of tighter margins and are having to take smaller deliveries of fuel to ensure that cash flow does not become a problem. Those are often the businesses that serve rural areas. If they cannot continue to operate, customers will face having to travel many more miles just to fill up the tank.
	It was only after pressure from Labour and campaigns such as FairFuelUK that the Chancellor decided to delay the last rise until 2013. Indeed, if we look back on what could be called the fastest U-turn in history, we see that he backed down only hours after Labour called for that help for businesses and families. We welcomed his climbdown then, and we and millions of motorists up and down the country would welcome a renewed commitment from the Government.

Andrea Leadsom: rose —

Cathy Jamieson: I will give way to the hon. Lady if she can give that commitment.

Andrea Leadsom: Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that it was her Government who put in place the fuel duty escalator, which is the whole problem facing British motorists today? Does she accept that?

Cathy Jamieson: The hon. Lady must also recognise that it was in her Government’s Budget. What we are asking the Chancellor to do is listen. We have heard a great deal about how he is in listening mode, but I do not know how long he must listen before making the decision. According to the House of Commons Library, the cost of delaying the fuel duty rise again until April 2013 would be around £350 million, and we think that could be paid for through a clampdown on tax avoidance. I am conscious that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) wishes to intervene.

John Redwood: I am very grateful. Will the hon. Lady explain which specific tax loopholes Labour would close that the Government are not already closing, and why does Labour not provide any money after April when they would be putting the tax up again?

Cathy Jamieson: I absolutely will explain that. We think that there are loopholes that can be closed, and I am sure that the Government will also want to close every possible loophole. For example, there is a growing problem with some employment agencies forcing workers to become employees of umbrella companies. They then falsely inflate the workers’ travel and other expense claims, reducing tax and national insurance and pocketing the avoided tax as profits. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs forecast in 2008 that the cost to the Exchequer of that avoidance would be around £650 million by 2012-13. More recent reports have suggested that the current tax loss could be as high as £1 billion. Even if only a proportion of that money was recouped, it could pay for the fuel duty rise to be postponed.
	As I said earlier, I know that many Government Members feel strongly about this issue. We have heard over the weekend and today all the talk about the Chancellor being in listening mode, but at the same time the Treasury’s official line is that no decision has been taken. Nods and winks are no good to families struggling in the run-up to Christmas. The approach that says “It will be all right on the night” is no use to the small business trying to balance the books and plan for the first quarter of next year. If the Chancellor has made up his mind to delay the duty rise, his Ministers should say so, and they should say so today. If we do not hear that announcement loud and clear, every hon. Member who wants to see the increase dropped should not only talk the talk tonight, but walk the walk; they should walk into the Lobby with us and vote for the 3p increase to be delayed.

Sajid Javid: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end and add:
	“notes that as a result of the action this Government has taken to cut, cancel and delay fuel duty rises families will save around £159 on fuel costs by April 2013; further notes that under the previous administration’s plans, voted for by the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor, pump prices would be 10 pence higher than they currently are; also notes that motorists in island communities are benefiting from the fuel duty discount pilot scheme; recognises that this Government has introduced a number of other measures to support families including a £1,100 increase in the personal income tax allowance from April 2013, three years of council tax freezes and a cap on rail fares; commends that these measures have been in part affordable because of the Government’s record of success in tackling tax avoidance and evasion which is on track to raise an additional £7 billion per annum by the end of this Parliament; and welcomes the Government’s commitment to do more to help with the cost of living in the future subject to the constraints of the public finances.”
	I see that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) has been abandoned by her boss—

Rachel Reeves: Where is your boss?

Sajid Javid: My boss is in Brussels on Government business. The hon. Lady’s boss is probably too busy cooking lasagne for someone. As usual, he is busy chasing the headlines and has left her to pick up the pieces.
	Rising living costs have made life difficult for millions of households. I know that first hand. Like millions of others, I have lived under financial distress, so I know what it is like to worry about paying the bills and living within a tight budget, and the Government know about that, too. Times are tough. We inherited the biggest deficit in the developed world and the largest in our peacetime history, and international commodity prices continue to rise, raising the cost of living. Since May 2010, the price of wheat is up 72% and the price of Brent crude is up 31%. While talking about commodity prices, I note that the price of gold is up 40%. Had the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), not recklessly sold off the nation’s gold reserves, our country would be £10 billion richer. That is money we could have used to help hard-working families.
	To clear up the mess left by the Labour party, we have had to make tough decisions, but we have prioritised the cost of living wherever we can. We have cut income tax, frozen council tax, capped rail fare increases and, moving on to the Opposition’s motion, we have delayed and cancelled the fuel duty rises that they supported.

Angus MacNeil: The Minister states that the price of wheat has gone up. Bread and butter prices have clearly increased dramatically. Is this not exactly the wrong time for the Government to put 3p on the price of a litre of fuel?

Sajid Javid: That is exactly why the Government have taken action on the cost of living, which I will move on to shortly. Let me first talk about the Labour party’s record. It will not admit that it delivered the biggest deficit in the developed world. The shadow Chancellor said only three weeks ago that under Labour
	“there was not a structural deficit”.
	In fact, there was a structural deficit of £71 billion in 2007-08—more than 5% of this country’s GDP. We should thank him. Whenever anyone might need reminding
	why the Labour party must never be allowed to run this country again, the shadow Chancellor steps up to the plate—and this motion is another reminder.

Sheila Gilmore: Does the Minister accept that it is misleading constantly to give a cash figure for the size of deficit and say that it is higher than in countries with a far lower GDP?

Sajid Javid: I think that the hon. Lady needs to study the figures and understand what “percentage of GDP” means.

Andrew Selous: On tax avoidance, will my hon. Friend confirm that this Government have done far more than Labour ever did to reclaim tax due to the Exchequer, and does he agree that the Opposition should give credit where it is due?

Sajid Javid: As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come to that later.
	In the Budgets of 2009 and 2010, the shadow Chancellor and his colleagues endorsed seven rises in fuel duty between 2010 and 2014.

Dan Rogerson: The Minister finds himself in a strange set of circumstances whereby he is having to take the Opposition’s advice to abandon the policy that they pursued in government. What does he think it will be next—returning the top rate of income tax to the 40% that it was for most of their time in office, or perhaps reintroducing the 10p rate?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the Opposition are all over the place.
	If we had found a way to halt all the rises that Labour had planned, we would have done so, but if we had gone ahead with its plans, fuel duty would have continued to rise. Fuel would be 10p per litre more expensive by now, costing the average Ford Focus driver £159 extra by April 2013. Let us put to bed once and for all the idea that Labour is the party fighting to support people on the cost of living.

Brian H Donohoe: As the Minister was in his place earlier he will have heard me ask what is the amount of tax on a litre of petrol. Does he agree that, for the first time, a Government should allow that figure to be displayed on the forecourts of all our petrol stations?

Sajid Javid: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that because of the policies of the Government he supported, there were 12 rises in fuel duty, so it is a lot higher today than it would have been otherwise.
	This Government are taking action. Since the coalition came together, our economic plans have won international credibility. We have cut the deficit by a quarter. Because of this, we have secured record low interest rates and opened up Britain for business once again.

Andrew Percy: The Opposition’s motion has absolutely no credibility given their record in government, and that is why I certainly will not support it. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Government have done some good things in this respect. May I send him a message from the people of Brigg and
	Goole, which is that we welcome what has been done thus far but desperately want this rise to be cancelled or delayed again?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend makes himself absolutely clear. He has been an avid campaigner on this issue, and his point of view is certainly being taken on board.
	These low interest rates have helped hard-working families up and down the country with their cost of living. With interest rates low, mortgage bills are also low. If interest rates rose by just 1%, average mortgage bills would increase by almost £1,000 a year.

Bill Esterson: The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said that his constituents want the planned rise in fuel duty to be cancelled—as do my constituents—and the Minister said that he agreed with him, so why does he not support our motion?

Sajid Javid: If the hon. Gentleman is patient he will hear about the action we have taken to help with the cost of living.

Marcus Jones: Who is trying more to help hard-working people with the cost of living—a Government who have frozen council tax for the past three years or a Government who doubled council tax during their term in office?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend knows that the answer to that question is that it is this Government who are on the side of hard-working families.

Graham Stuart: As my hon. Friend knows, many of my constituents live in sparsely populated rural areas, and the cost of fuel has an immense impact on their family finances, yet they realise that running the country with massive deficits puts their children’s futures at risk and means that money that could have been spent on public services is instead spent as Labour wants—on interest.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Charlie Elphicke: There is opportunism not only on fuel duty but on tax avoidance. Under the previous Government, income tax paid by hard-working families in the working nation rose by 81%, but Labour Members let business off the hook, with corporation tax receipts going up by only 6%, because they were so obsessed with the prawn cocktail circuit.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend has done a lot of work in this area and speaks with great knowledge. He is absolutely right to point out Labour’s inaction.

Guto Bebb: I speak as a Member of Parliament representing a Welsh constituency. Is my hon. Friend aware that this Government made available to the Labour Administration in Cardiff money to freeze council tax in Wales, but they declined to do so?

Sajid Javid: That is a shocking disclosure, but what more could we expect from Labour?

Eilidh Whiteford: We all know that the Government inherited a mess, but does the Minister accept that the increase in fuel duty will harm recovery by holding back businesses and households?

Sajid Javid: I think that the hon. Lady would welcome the action that the Government have already taken on the cost of living and on fuel duty.
	This Government have also been working hard to get people into work. There are more people in employment than ever before. Unlike Labour, we have no problem in welcoming the fact that the private sector has created over 1 million jobs over the past two years. That equates to more net new jobs created in the private sector in two years than were created in 10 years under Labour. With this support in place, we have strained every sinew to cut taxes where we can to ease the cost of living. We have cut fuel duty—a cut that Labour opposed—and frozen it for nearly two years. Fuel is now 10p cheaper than it would have been under Labour, helping family budgets. We have cut income tax for 25 million people and lifted 2 million people out of income tax altogether. We have frozen council tax for two years and announced that we will do it again next year. This Government have saved families £220 per annum on the average council tax bill. We have capped increases in rail fares so that commuters do not face substantially above-inflation rises.

Gloria De Piero: Can the Minister explain how tax cuts for millionaires helped hard-working families?

Sajid Javid: If the hon. Lady is referring to the previous Budget, the changes we made to the top tax rate were covered more than six times by other changes that we announced. This Government want to create a tax system that is both efficient and helps to create jobs.

Ian Swales: Does the Minister share my surprise that the previous Government thought it was fine to give tax relief of £250,000 a year on pensions contributions, and may I confirm that not one of my constituents has complained about the cut to £50,000?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend makes a good point and shows again where this Government are taking action to balance the nation’s finances.
	We are doing a lot more to try to help those in need. We are investing more than £4.5 billion over this Parliament in affordable housing, delivering 170,000 new homes. We have replaced Labour's ineffective stamp duty relief with schemes that work, such as Firstbuy and NewBuy, helping more than 25,000 first-time buyers to find their way on to the first rung of the housing ladder.
	Let us look at Labour's claims on tax avoidance. It wants us to clamp down on a scheme that uses a specific tax relief around travel expenses—a relief about which in 2008 the Labour Government, when presented with the facts, chose to do nothing.

Lyn Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Sajid Javid: I will in a moment.
	The Labour Government, when presented with the facts about this tax relief in 2008, chose to do nothing. They declared:
	“The Government has considered—

Lyn Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Sajid Javid: If the hon. Lady is patient, I will give way in a moment—[ Interruption . ]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not need an answer back; I am just saying that the hon. Lady does not need to keep jumping to her feet. The Minister has promised to give way, but I do not know whether he is giving way now.

Sajid Javid: Not yet.
	The hon. Lady does not want me to tell the House what the Labour Government did when they looked at this tax loophole. They declared:
	“The Government has considered all the consultation responses and believes that on balance the negative effects of changing existing legislation outweigh the benefits"
	To address just this issue, this Government have already strengthened HMRC's enforcement and compliance teams, and protected tens of millions of pounds of revenue. So the nub of today's debate is a call to clamp down on avoidance of a relief that the Opposition declared they could do nothing about, to pay for a cut in fuel duty that they supported. Mr Deputy Speaker, you couldn't make it up.

Stewart Hosie: The Minister said he wanted to talk about tax avoidance, so let us talk about it. Why did the Chief Secretary to the Treasury promise at his party’s conference last year thousands of extra tax inspectors, and why have the Government failed to deliver any of them?

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question; I will come on to it.

Bill Esterson: It would be great if the Minister spoke to the fuel duty motion—[ Interruption. ] The fuel duty part of the motion. He talks about tax avoidance. Many of my constituents used to work at HMRC—they do not any more because his Government got rid of them. How can he be serious about tax avoidance when he has not provided the new inspectors he promised and has cut some of the staff who were there when the Government took office?

Sajid Javid: The motion mentions tax avoidance—he really should read his own party’s motion. The number of HMRC employees went down from 96,000 to 66,000 under his Government.
	Labour Members had 13 years to clamp down more widely on tax avoidance. They had 13 years to do what they are calling for today. Did they take that chance? No. There were 13 years of inaction, and a consultation gathering dust in the Treasury archives. Even then, their figures simply do not add up. They claim that clamping down on this tax relief would bring in £650 million, but figures released while they were in power show it would bring in significantly less. If they ever want to regain
	credibility on the economy, they need to apologise for the mess in which they left the economy and learn to stop making irresponsible, unfunded promises.

Christopher Pincher: Only the deluded or those who want to avoid tax will oppose the closing of tax loopholes. Many people have criticised some companies for avoiding tax, but a company called Stemcor pays only £163,000 from the £65 million of profits it makes each year—about 0.1% of its revenues. If companies are to be criticised, should not Stemcor be criticised?

Sajid Javid: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. It would not be appropriate for me to talk about any individual company, but he makes a good point. Any company that is engaged in aggressive tax avoidance needs to explain itself.
	Tax avoidance ran rife under Labour. We have taken action. We are investing £900 million to tackle tax avoidance and evasion, which will deliver £7 billion a year by 2014. We have already signed a groundbreaking agreement with Switzerland to make it much more difficult to evade tax. In March this year, HMRC closed a business property loss scheme within a week of its disclosure. At the G20, the Chancellor and his German counterpart announced concerted co-operation to close gaps in international standards and to crack down on international tax avoidance. Labour's former City Minister, Lord Myners, was on the radio only this morning welcoming this progress.
	Underpinning all this progress, we are introducing a general anti-abuse rule so that no one can follow the letter of the law but abuse the spirit and get away with it—something else on which the Labour party never delivered. This is what real action on tax avoidance looks like.

Fiona O'Donnell: If it is all going so well, why cannot the Minister do something to help my constituents who cannot afford to fill up their cars?

Sajid Javid: This Government do not shy away from making tough decisions. We are getting on with cleaning up the mess left behind by the previous Government, and we are doing everything we can to help hard-working families with the cost of living and putting money back into their pockets. Our action on fuel duty is a part of this. Fuel duty is currently 20% lower in real terms compared with its peak in March 2000, and 7% lower compared with May 2010. If we had continued the policies of the previous Government, pump prices would, quite simply, be higher—fuel would be 10p more expensive per litre. I know that some hon. Members will call for a further freeze in fuel duty today. I can assure them that the Government understand the financial pressures that hard-working families are facing. Subject to the constraints of the public finances, this Government are determined to keep helping families with the cost of living.
	I urge hon. Members to reject the Opposition's motion and to support the Government's amendment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I remind Members that the time limit on speeches is seven minutes.

Albert Owen: I am disappointed by the Minister’s speech—I have heard it several times before. Whenever he addresses the House he uses the same argument: the previous Government got us into a mess. Today, my constituents are suffering from high petrol and diesel prices, which is why the motion, which I shall support, was tabled.
	I have consistently supported the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) over a period. Indeed, I opposed the Labour Government increasing fuel duties because I thought the timing was wrong.

Henry Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Albert Owen: I will in a moment, but given the time limit I do want to make some progress.
	I want to raise three issues, the first of which is the impact of fuel duty on businesses, especially those in peripheral areas of the United Kingdom. The Government also chose to impose a VAT increase, despite the Prime Minister having told the country before the election that they had no intention of doing so. Every time constituents throughout the country put petrol or diesel in their cars they pay an extra 3p per litre because of the tax introduced by this Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Pete Wishart: I am genuinely confused. What is the difference between a Labour fuel tax hike and a Conservative one?

Albert Owen: Scottish National party Members always use that line on fuel duty, and I am not going to waste my time on it—[ Interruption. ] If the hon. Gentleman had checked the record, he would know that I have been consistent on fuel duty. I have followed SNP Members through the Lobby on that. Previous Labour Chancellors froze the duty following pressure from people. That is on the record. We can play games about previous Governments, but the serious issue is the cost—

Henry Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Albert Owen: No. I want to make progress. The serious problem is that our constituents are paying 15p per litre more for petrol under this Government than they paid under the previous Government. Government Members can use nonsense hypotheticals, and say, “It would be 10p more expensive under a Labour Government,” but the fuel escalator was introduced by the Major Government. We could use the same argument, and say, “Had we stuck to that, fuel would by so many pence more expensive.” The reality is that it is 15% more expensive today.

Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Albert Owen: I will not give way—I want to make progress.
	VAT is hurting families and businesses. Hauliers and small businesses in my constituency are paying extra fuel duty and VAT on their fuel. The impact is on goods—[ Interruption. ] The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, the hon. Member for Scarborough
	and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), says from a sedentary position that they get the money back, but he should listen to businesses. They tell me that fuel duty and VAT impacts on their businesses. Are they wrong? He needs to listen to businesses rather than make silly party political points in the Chamber. That is the reality of the situation: they pay more for fuel.
	There is a double whammy because, as the Minister said, businesses also pay more for raw materials. They are being badly hurt. The debate should concentrate on what our constituents are telling us.

Jim Shannon: rose—

Albert Owen: I will give way once more, and then I need to make progress.

Jim Shannon: In Northern Ireland, 25% of every worker’s wage is spent on fuel getting to and from work. Another 10% is spent on heating oil. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the VAT increase should not go ahead for that reason, and that concessions should be made for people in Northern Ireland, where the price of fuel is higher than anywhere else in the UK?

Albert Owen: The motion calls for a freeze on duty, but Labour introduced a previous debate on temporarily cutting VAT to help hard-working businesses and people across the country. Businesses are being hurt.
	We rightly say that road transport is hit hard, but ferry companies—this is a serious point that nobody raises—must, because of the high prices, put fares up and cut back on the time their service takes so they can cut fuel costs. The problems that British businesses face are real. In my part of the world, the extra fuel duties mean problems getting goods to market and getting people to the workplace. This is a real issue for real people. I hope hon. Members remember that tonight.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned periphery areas. Northern Ireland has the highest fuel duty in the UK, but it is closely followed by periphery areas of Wales. The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who is not in his place, made a political point about council tax in Wales. The reality is that the Government cut revenue and capital spend in Wales, so those authorities have to make their decisions, but they are not responsible for fuel tax. Fuel tax lies at the door of the Government. Incumbents have the opportunity to increase fuel duty when they believe that is necessary and to reduce it when it hurts business and our constituents. Now is the time for this Government to think seriously about that.
	The Minister is listening—he says the Government always listen and that they are in listening mode—but he needs to take action, and to tell businesses tonight whether or not he intends do so. It is no use the Chancellor and Government Back Benchers getting together, cloak and dagger, to say that the motion is opportunism. The reality is that many of those same Back Benchers have introduced the same motion and supported it in a Back-Bench debate. We need consistency from Government Members, because they know their constituents are feeling the pinch.

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong speech. He has shown personal consistency, but it is reasonable for Government Members to say that many of his colleagues show anything but. If he wants this duty freeze, what does he want to do to raise the money? Can tax loopholes instantly provide the money, does he want a cut in Government spending, or is he, like most of his colleagues, in favour of ever more borrowing?

Albert Owen: FairFuelUK’s argument is that money is lost to the Exchequer because of the serious impact of fuel duty on businesses. If we had growth in our economy, which all hon. Members want, the Exchequer would get more money, and businesses would be able to reinvest. That is one way. I would like the 4G windfall money to be used to help to alleviate small businesses—[ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby says the Opposition have spent the money, but that is not true—we are not sure how much it will be or how it will be spent. I should also point out to him that the Opposition do not spend the money; the Treasury makes those decisions. It is about time the Government took responsibility for their actions rather than making knockabout comments.
	My final remark is about the ordinary family. In my part of the UK and many periphery areas, motorists do not go on luxury outings. Motorists are families taking their children to school and students getting to college and university. People in remote areas need their cars for the weekly shop because public transport is not available. It is great when people can take alternative transport, such as in central London and large cities, but that is not a choice in periphery and remote areas.
	There is a choice tonight: hon. Members can vote for the motion or the amendment. They should vote for what their constituents want, and do what Members on both sides of the House have been asked to do. They should put loud and clear pressure on the Chancellor. If he is in listening mode, he will listen to the will of the House and suspend the 3p tax increase that he proposes to introduce in January, so that families can have a bit of a break and go into Christmas and the new year in the knowledge that they will have more money to spend, and so that businesses have more money to reinvest.

Ben Gummer: The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has shown the merit of consistency over many years, but that is not a quality shared by the first two signatories to the Opposition motion—the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls)—who, in proposing the motion, have shown that they are a very long way from being ready to form a Government. As my hon. Friend the Minister has shown so eloquently, the motion is riddled with contradictions and hypocritical, and shows that the Opposition do not understand in any way the appalling legacy with which the coalition Government have been charged with dealing by the British people.
	I hope Opposition Members, and especially Opposition Front Benchers, have read the motion—at least one of them will be a little embarrassed by it—which states:
	“That this House believes that, at a time when the cost of living is rising and our economic recovery is fragile”.
	At least we have a begrudging admission from them that there is an economic recovery. That there is a recovery has taken a while to come out.

Alison Seabeck: I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that the Opposition motion openly states that there is a fragile economic recovery. Will he do likewise and acknowledge that there was a fragile economic recovery in June 2010?

Lindsay Hoyle: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question, I remind hon. Members that, if they intervene, and if they drop down the speaking list, they will understand why—they keep adding minutes to the debate.

Ben Gummer: I thank the hon. Lady for her comment, because it helps me to remind her that, when Britain was in recession at the back end of 2008, fuel duty went up by 2p. When it was in recession at the beginning of 2009, fuel duty went up by 2p. When it was in recession in September 2009, fuel duty went up by 2p. When there was a faltering recovery—which was probably credit fuelled—in March 2010, on the eve of an election, at the point when the figures showed that the economy was recovering, fuel duty went up by 1p. So much for the correlation between recession and fuel duty increases.

Bill Esterson: rose—

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Those who think they are bottom of the list will also have minutes removed.

Bill Esterson: I am always happy to be guided by you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the research—

Sajid Javid: Reading!

Bill Esterson: Thank you. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) is aware of the research by FairFuelUK that points out that a 3p increase in duty would deliver a 0.1% drop in GDP and the loss of 35,000 jobs. Does he accept those figures?

Ben Gummer: At least FairFuelUK sticks to its position. My point is that Labour put up fuel duty in government when the country was in a deep recession and increased it by marginally less when the country was showing signs of a credit-fuelled recovery—coincidentally, on the eve of an election—yet now, when there has been 1% growth in GDP, Labour objects to an increase in fuel duty that was programmed at that point by the previous Government. What Labour lacks in consistency it also lacks in remembrance of what it did previously, faced with the worst recession this country has ever suffered, when the Labour Government put duel duty up by 6p over 18 months.

Susan Elan Jones: The hon. Gentleman speaks of remembrance, yet he seems to have forgotten the rise in VAT. Will he say how that impacted on fuel duty and how it affected his constituents?

Ben Gummer: I shall turn to disposable incomes and the cost of living in the round now, as it is mentioned in the motion. Of course times are incredibly difficult, for
	my constituents and most of our constituents. The cost of living and disposable incomes have come under considerable pressure, but a large part of that has resulted from the need to balance the books. We were left the largest deficit in peacetime history, which—as the Minister reminded us—we now understand was £71 billion before the recession came. Yet the inheritance was not just one of deficit in 2008, but one where real wages fell in the period from 2003 to 2008, when GDP figures showed at least nominal growth—of 11% perhaps —in the economy. Real wages for anyone who happened to be a middle-income earner stagnated in that period, while real wages for those in the bottom quartile fell by 0.4%. Therefore, when the country was growing under the previous Administration, incomes were falling for the vast majority of people in real terms.
	The reason we now have to take painful steps to rebalance the economy is to address the fundamental problems that the previous Government not only failed to address, but in many instances laid the foundations for. This country cannot survive on the economic model built by a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of this nation. It was that model which broke so spectacularly in 2008, and it is this model which we are trying, little by little, to repair. The least the Opposition could do is recognise the problems that they gave this new coalition Government to sort out, yet we have before us a motion that is a consummate exploration of inconsistency and hypocrisy. What I would say to those on the Government Front Bench is this: do not listen to the Opposition when they give lectures on tax avoidance or fuel duty, because they have none to give.
	I suggest that we have a system that will not work in the long term. The problem with fuel taxation is that—as the Office for Budget Responsibility has probably underestimated—it will cost the Exchequer some £13 billion by 2026. Fuel taxation is a system that has been modified so many times to allow for low-emission vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and rural drivers that it is becoming a sieve for the Exchequer, and it needs fundamental reform. I would push Ministers to think seriously again about road tolling, so that we can stop this silly exercise, which we now have year in, year out, of deciding whether to put up taxes—decisions that are often completely countermanded the next day or within a week by volatile rises and drops in the price of oil—and moreover allow ourselves to manage the vast assets that we have in the road infrastructure in this country. At the moment, there is no demand management and complete resource misallocation in maintenance and investment, all of which could be remedied by a sensible road tolling system, which would help us to target help specifically at those constituents whom many in this Chamber will talk about this evening.
	We have before us an inconsistent and hypocritical motion—a motion that tells us nothing, apart from the fact that Her Majesty’s Opposition are a long way from forming Her Majesty’s Government. I therefore commend the amendment, which my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has moved, and, in so doing, hope that he will look again at road tolling, so that we can stop this perennial debate once and for all.

Iain McKenzie: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer). He will be glad to know that I intend not to lecture, but
	to plead for hard-pressed motorists up and down the country, who are seeing fuel prices devastating both the private motorist and businesses.
	In Inverclyde, my constituents are forced into choosing between paying more for fuel and doing without other essentials, or digging into their savings to meet the ever-increasing cost of motoring. A car is an absolute necessity for many of my constituents. I have a varied constituency. Many people live in outlaying areas some distance from the main bus and train links, so they are required to use their cars daily, with the increase in rail and bus fares giving them little consolation.
	The weekly cost of filling up the fuel tank is for ever growing. The additional financial outlay to bring that fuel gauge to where it once used to reach means people digging deep into their resources. That is on top of road tax and insurance costs, not to mention maintenance against wear and tear, all of which adds to the joys of motoring. In Inverclyde, the price of a litre of fuel averages around £1.39 a litre. The two large supermarket petrol stations in my constituency kindly keep close to each other’s price, thus making it relatively easy to work out the average, although I do one supermarket an injustice. Morrisons in Inverclyde has decided to offer 15p off a litre for those spending £60 or more in the shop—and yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, it’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas.
	This House has been united before on fuel prices, calling on the Government to drop the intended fuel escalator rise planned for earlier this year. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for securing that earlier debate. We on the Opposition Benches believe that a freeze in fuel duty will stimulate growth and create jobs. Fuel duty is having a huge effect on the UK’s road freight industry. The 3p increase in fuel duty planned for January will add £15 a week to the running cost of a vehicle. A fleet of 50 vehicles will have to recover £37,000 a year. The recovery of such costs simply drives up inflation in the supply chain and makes our haulage industry uncompetitive compared with its foreign rivals, who pay much less for their fuel. Indeed, foreign trucks enter the UK full of cheaper fuel—they have enough to work in the UK for a full week. Because they pay no fuel duty here, they can easily undercut our UK hauliers, thereby driving them out of business and creating unemployment in the UK.

Gregory Campbell: May I take up the hon. Gentleman’s point about drivers from other jurisdictions? Does he agree that the Treasury is actually losing money because of the duty increase? Drivers in Northern Ireland, particularly haulage drivers, cross the border to the Irish Republic to avail themselves of cheaper fuel. Tens of thousands of litres of fuel per day have been purchased in the Republic rather than in Northern Ireland, and duty has been lost to the Treasury as a result.

Iain McKenzie: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Moreover, I can tell the House that 30% of lorries carrying goods across the border from Scotland to the south-east of the UK are not from this country.
	I hope that Members on both sides of the House will be able to unite again in calling on the Government not to apply the 3p increase in January and to give the
	hard-pressed motorist a better start to the new year. If the Government really want to enter into the festive spirit, the Chancellor may wish to drop the VAT increase on fuel, thus taking yet another 3p off the price at the pump.

John Redwood: The Opposition are right to highlight the issue of the cost of living, and it is timely that we are having a debate about the pressures on it. It is particularly timely that we are having a debate about the pressures that the outgoing Labour Government imposed on the cost of living, which still remain. I am thinking of the hidden increases in petrol duty, and all the other measures that they left in place or that were needed if we were to try to combat the deficit.
	There is no doubt that the squeeze on people’s real living standards has been very severe in the last four years. It was most severe under Labour during its slump, but it has continued under the coalition Government. One of the reasons for the intensity of that squeeze on real incomes is the fact that price inflation has remained obstinately high, partly as a result of indirect taxation and partly, as the Minister said, as a result of world pressures on commodity markets.
	I find myself unable to support the motion, which may come as no surprise to any Member on either side of the House. I consider it to be defective in two important ways. First, I do not think that a temporary three-month freeze will solve the problem. A double whammy in April, which is what Labour proposes, could be even worse, because people will not have become used to the rising fuel price that was inherent in the Labour plans.

Fiona O'Donnell: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that three months do not constitute a long period, but they will be three months of cold weather, during which people will be having to cope with an increase of up to 11% in their energy bills. The three-month freeze would make a difference.

John Redwood: I am all in favour of lowering energy bills, although that is probably a topic for another day and another debate. I have made many suggestions to the Government, all of which I think Labour would find unpalatable. I have, for instance, suggested possible methods of making gas much cheaper, thus reducing prices for all our constituents and affecting real incomes in a way that would please me, but is not often favoured by my party.
	I think that the first part of the motion is flawed because what it proposes would not solve the underlying problem, namely, the tax increases left by the outgoing Government, but I am not very happy with the second part either. The Minister said that he did not think the Opposition had done their sums properly before proposing the measure to deal with tax avoidance, which they say would pay for the temporary lower duty rate. It was interesting to hear from him that the Labour Government had considered a scheme relating to travel costs, but had decided that it would be unwise to pursue it. We do not know whether they made that decision because of the impact that it would have on people or because it would not bring in enough revenue, but it appears from what the Minister said that there was an issue involving the amount of revenue that it would raise. For those two
	reasons—it would not solve the duty problem, and the numbers do not add up—I think that it would be unwise for the House to support the motion.
	As for the coalition Government’s amendment, I find myself particularly in agreement with the final words, in which we are asked to welcome
	“the Government’s commitment to do more to help with the cost of living in future”.
	I was interested to hear the Minister not only say that he understood the points that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends had been making about the level of fuel duties, but imply that action might be forthcoming in the autumn statement and the subsequent Budget statement to tackle that or related problems. I shall be happy if the Government tackle the over-burden of taxation in a variety of ways. I do not think that we need be too prescriptive tonight. We know that an autumn statement is coming up, and we know that there will be a Budget statement after that. However, I want to address my few remarks in this short debate to the issue of what the commitment to do more to help people in the future might amount to in those two important statements of Government policy.
	The first point that I hope the Government will grasp is that this country’s problem is not that it is undertaxed. If we look at the budgets and the state of the national finances, we see that there is every sign that successive Governments have tried to increase the tax burden substantially to keep pace with accelerating current public spending. I think that we have now reached the point of no return—the point of saturation. The high rate of income tax introduced by Labour has led to a big fall in income tax receipts at the top level, which is not very surprising—and which, of course, is of no interest to Labour Members. They had their little jibe about millionaires, but they should be asking themselves what tax rate will cause rich people to make the maximum contribution to filling the massive financial hole in which we find ourselves.
	We are well above that rate now, as the figures clearly indicate. I think that the Government will find that their higher rate of capital gains tax also collects rather less revenue than before, or than they would like, and that fuel duties, while probably still contributing some increment to taxation, are not creating as big an increment as they would like either, as people simply cannot afford all the fuel that they used to buy because the duties are so high.
	We know that more than 60% of the pump price—and the price of petrol and diesel in this country is currently very high—goes, in one form or another, to the UK Government. Of course, part of the rest of the price goes in taxes to other Governments so that they can produce the fuel in the first place. A massive amount of tax is being taken by the British Government directly, along with the 60%-plus that is taken by them indirectly through the tax on oil companies, and by foreign Governments in their taxation on the oil. The motorist is seen as an easy target for huge amounts of tax in an attempt to meet the bills. I hope that, when considering ways of easing the cost of living, the Government will bear in mind that motorists and business drivers—people who are trying to power the economic recovery—are incurring very large bills through this particular tax.
	I think that all Members agree with two propositions about the economy. First, we would like it to grow faster, and secondly we would like to make big cuts in public spending by getting people back to work, so that
	they can earn more in jobs than they can receive in out-of-work benefits. Those are the aims that the Government must pursue. They have told us that they wish to make work more worth while. It is now clear that the economy has had a good job generation capability in the private sector over the last couple of years or so, and that is very welcome. However, we now need to ensure that we can reduce public spending by getting many more people into jobs, so that they require less benefit support, and we need to do that partly by cutting tax rates, so that we can collect more revenue in a friendlier way.
	There is no doubt that we have tax saturation, and the Government need to take that on board for the purposes of the autumn statement and the Budget. We should reject the rather foolish motion, which was never going to ensnare many Conservatives—Labour will have to get better at ensnaring Conservatives, if that is its game—and support, and ensure that the Government deliver on, their proposal to do more about the cost of living, because that is a very real issue which worries many of our constituents.

William Bain: I was intrigued by the Economic Secretary’s arguments when he moved the amendment. He is no longer in his place, but wherever he is at the moment, I hope he can afford enough fuel to return to planet Earth, as that was not a place he was able to inhabit much during his contribution. He spoke of the fanfare of international approval for the Chancellor’s policies, yet the OECD says that this year demand in our country will be one tenth of that in the United States and in the lowest fifth among EU countries. He said this Government dealt in costed spending commitments, from the very Dispatch Box where a few weeks ago the Prime Minister caused chaos in the energy industry by saying every consumer would be on the lowest possible tariff. The Economic Secretary also boasted about taking action on high commodity prices on behalf of a Government who are blocking the enactment of a global Dodd-Frank Bill in line with the successful approach in the United States.
	Last week’s election in the United States showed that for voters both across the Atlantic and in the United Kingdom the key issue is living standards. During the longest journey out of an economic slump in Britain for 140 years, living standards have declined at a more prolific rate than during the recessions presided over by the Conservative party in the 1980s and 1990s. As last month’s Office for National Statistics study of well-being showed, on the net national incomes measure, incomes in the second quarter of 2012 were 13.2% lower than before the start of the great recession in 2008. We should be under no illusion: a real economic recovery for millions of lower and middle-income people in this country will not happen until these trends show signs of being reversed.

John Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the biggest fall in living standards occurred on Labour’s watch, when boom went to bust?

William Bain: Tax credits helped to sustain family incomes in that period, but that is precisely the part of the tax and benefit system that is under such great assault from the Government the right hon. Gentleman supports.
	We need a long-term strategy to tackle declining living standards, but there are short-term measures we can take now that will help ordinary families. We can have a cut in VAT and not proceed with the 3p rise in fuel duty next January. Both those measures would help to restore growth to an economy that has been starved of it for a year, and which is smaller now than at the time of the Chancellor’s comprehensive spending review of October 2010.
	Despite a decrease in the headline consumer prices index inflation rate from 5.2% to 2.2% since last October, costs of basic goods such as electricity and food are going up. Average electricity bills are up by £200 since the coalition took office, taking the average bill to £1,310 a year. Costs for childminders for the over-2s in Scotland have risen at nearly twice the CPI inflation rate this year. Living costs are, therefore, soaring for millions of people.

Fiona O'Donnell: My hon. Friend missed out one boast the Minister made, which was about the creation of private sector jobs. In my constituency, many of those jobs are for care workers on the minimum wage and on a zero-hours contract. Those workers need a car to be able to sustain even that level of employment.

William Bain: I entirely agree. Most of the jobs that have been created over the last couple of years have been part-time, insecure, low-hours posts. We have soaring under-employment in our country, with as many as 3.3 million people unable to secure sufficient working hours to make work pay. Nothing in the amendment would deal with that trend.
	Combined with a VAT rise under this Government, fuel duty rises are particularly regressive. In 2009-10 the poorest quintile paid 3.5% of their disposable income in fuel duty, compared with just 1.8% paid by the top quintile. Overall, in the first year of this Government indirect taxes took 31% of the disposable income of people in the lowest fifth of earners, compared with just 13% among the wealthiest fifth of earners, and that was an increase from the previous fiscal year. According to the latest ONS study of factors affecting the retail prices index and CPI inflation measures, two of the major factors driving upward pressures were the price of clothing and footwear, which rose by 4.7% between August and September this year, and the rising cost of motor fuel, with petrol up by 3.9p per litre and diesel up by 3.5p per litre, compared with falls of 0.3p per litre in the previous year. These changes contributed 0.12% to the shift in the CPI inflation rate. In the year to this September, motor fuel costs alone rose by 2.8%. The case for action is therefore clear.
	All these trends must be considered in the context of our low growth. The International Monetary Fund recently downgraded its estimate for UK GDP by 0.6% for this year and by a further 0.3% for next year. That is a crushing verdict, showing that the Government’s policies have sucked even more demand from the economy—as much as an additional £76 billion given the new evidence of the destructive multiplier effects of the Chancellor’s austerity measures. As the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has established, implementing the Government’s preferred rise in fuel duty in January
	would further weaken growth by 0.1% of GDP next year and keep unemployment higher than it needs to be some 48 months since the downturn began.
	That is why I hope Members across the House will tonight take this opportunity to release some of the pressures ordinary households and businesses are facing by voting to postpone any rise in fuel duty until at least April.

Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman referred only to postponing the fuel duty increase. I want to put it on record that I think the Government should cancel the increase, and I hope they will do so. Why is the hon. Gentleman only in favour of postponing it? Why not cancel it?

William Bain: If the hon. Gentleman has the courage of the convictions he has just expressed, he should join us in the Lobby tonight. That will be the evidence his constituents will be looking for tomorrow morning.
	On incomes, millions of ordinary people are under huge pressure because of the collapse in real wages, which has hit particularly hard since the onset of the current recession.

Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William Bain: I am running out of time, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his own speech.
	Since 2007, real wages have declined by about 4% for the vast majority of ordinary people, damaging their spending power and weakening prospects for a consumer-led economic recovery. In my constituency, almost three in 10 workers, including half of all the 10,000 part-time workers, earn less than the living wage of £7.45 an hour. The increases in fuel duty have hit them especially hard. As the Resolution Foundation’s recent Commission on Living Standards report established, just 12p in every £1 of growth generated in Britain finds its way into the pay packets of workers in the lower half of the income scale. They need help on fuel costs tonight.
	Britain stands at a crossroads. Without a change in policy, people will be no better off in 2020 than they were in 2001, but with the right kind of reforms on pay, tax and benefits, that can be reversed and we can see the gap between rich and poor falling once again. Tonight we can make our contribution to supporting growth and improving the living standards of our constituents over the next few months, by rejecting the Government amendment and boosting much needed job creation by cutting fuel duty.

Robert Halfon: I believe that, as has been said, fuel duty has become a toxic tax, and that the public have just had enough. I also believe that the Government are listening, and that that is shown by their amendment, as highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). I am disappointed with Labour’s smokescreen. This debate is really about hiding the record of the shadow Chancellor and many years of putting up fuel duty. I have to say to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun
	(Cathy Jamieson) that when I was campaigning hard last year, organising and working hard with FairFuelUK to get the Government to cut fuel duty, the Government cut fuel duty in the 2011 Budget but the hon. Lady, the shadow Chancellor and their party voted to keep fuel duty up, so let us have no discussion about who is being opportunistic. I am disappointed that the Labour party has chosen to conduct the debate in this way.
	The heart of the debate should be the figures published by the Office for National Statistics almost a year ago. Its data proved that fuel duty is regressive and hits poorest Brits the hardest. It is with that fact in mind that we should consider the recent history, or at least the past five years, of the debate in the House on petrol taxes. In 2007, the shadow Chancellor said:
	“In this Budget, we have set out further actions to advance the environment agenda, including…a fuel duty increase of more than inflation”,
	and that that
	“demonstrates the Government’s commitment to tackling climate change”.—[Official Report, 26 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 1265.]
	I think that that sums up the shadow Chancellor’s principles on the issue. I have to say that he makes the Vicar of Bray look like Gandhi. In reality, the shadow Chancellor’s petrol tax had very little to do with climate change, because families could not change their behaviour to respond to it. Like scrapping the 10p rate, it was a tax on the poor.
	That is why I am sceptical when the Opposition motion makes much of the small delays that Labour has sometimes applied to its increases in fuel duty. If one looks at the substance of the Budgets of 2009 and 2010, one sees that it programmed in massive fuel hikes for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. That is what we are dealing with today, and why I have campaigned, with many of my colleagues, to cut the cost of fuel duty. The argument is therefore not about whether we believe that the fuel duty rise should not go ahead—I passionately believe that—but about tactics. It is sensible and right to wait for the autumn statement. Given the Government’s record—they cut fuel duty last year and have stopped two planned fuel duty rises—I believe it is right to wait for the autumn statement.

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman has been consistent on this issue. He has also been campaigning hard for transparency on fuel duty matters. On that theme, will he tell the House what discussions he has had with the Chancellor? Which report in the newspapers is right: that the 3p rise will not go ahead and there will be a cut, or that there will be a 2p increase in the autumn statement?

Robert Halfon: Unfortunately, I am just a brand-new MP and I do not have the luxury of having discussions with the Chancellor. I have no idea what is in his lunchbox, but I do know that the Government have a record of cutting fuel duty. That is something that I am proud of and to which I can give strong support.

Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend accept the assurance, as least from Government Members, that if the rise does not go ahead it will have far more to do with his campaign than anything the Opposition have done?

Robert Halfon: I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend and, I have to say, to many colleagues in this House, some of whom are on the Opposition Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) has done a huge amount of work behind the scenes, as have many other colleagues. We will have to wait and see what the Government say in the autumn statement, but I am happy to support them because I believe that they are in serious listening mode.
	I have three concerns about the Labour motion. First, it is a non-binding motion; it is just gesture politics. My constituents care about the price of petrol, not the politics. Secondly, the only way that we can stop the petrol tax is through the autumn statement on 5 December. That is how it has been done in the past few years. Yes, I am asking the Treasury for action on fuel, but what my constituents want is action on the policy—the substance. My constituents will not be looking at what happens today; they will be looking when the Chancellor makes his speech on 5 December. That is when we hope that the Chancellor will listen to British motorists.
	Thirdly, we need a long-term settlement for cheaper petrol. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham is exactly right. The motion proposes a three-month oil rush, which would lead to motorists being hammered with a 7p tax rise in April 2013. The only way to get the long-term settlement is to work constructively with the Government and look at reform and how we can permanently lower fuel duty.

David Simpson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Robert Halfon: I may if I have time, but I will continue for the moment.
	I believe that the Government are in strong listening mode, and I would not go into their Lobby tonight if I did not believe that to be the case. If we look at the Treasury amendment carefully, we see that it does not rule out stopping the planned rise in January. That is a significant move from a few months ago, when the Government said that the rise would go ahead. As I said, the Treasury team have done more to cut fuel prices than Labour did in a decade. We do not have to work at Bletchley Park to read the signals the Treasury is sending about helping with the cost of living—it is written in black and white.
	I will continue to ask the Government to lower fuel duty, but I want to end where I started: this is a matter of social justice. I have stuck my head above the parapet and tabled several motions urging the Government to cut fuel duty. Inevitably, the focus in the media today has been on the economics, but this is about social justice. The average person in Harlow spends £1,700 a year filling up the family car—one tenth of their income. In essence, those families are facing fuel poverty. According to data published last year, three quarters of bankruptcies in the transport sector were the result of fuel costs. High fuel prices are adding to Britain’s dole queues. Furthermore, as the AA shows, families are choosing between buying food and filling up at the pumps.
	I urge the Chancellor and the Treasury to listen to the thousands of Harlow residents who have written to me, and take action. Given everything the Treasury team have done in the past two years to cut fuel duty and
	given that the Chancellor’s amendment leaves the door open to cuts in fuel duty, we should at least wait for the autumn statement before casting judgment. That is why I will be proud to vote with the Government tonight, and I urge the House to vote for the amendment. I would not support the Government if I did not believe they had genuinely taken this on board. I hope they do not let us down.

Alison Seabeck: We have heard many high-quality speeches tonight, including a powerful argument from my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and from the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who made a genuine plea—I think—to the Chancellor at the end of his speech, urging him to listen carefully.
	The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the social issues around the fuel price increase, but it is not just the fuel increase that is causing problems. The cost of living has risen across the country, and these higher costs are taking particular hold in the south-west and my constituency. Average wages are rising nowhere close to inflation, and hard-working families are finding it harder to make ends meet. And this at a time when the south-west has been dealt another blow from this out-of-touch Government, who have allowed 20 NHS trusts to create a pay cartel in order to slash wages for NHS workers in Plymouth and across the region.
	Wages in the south-west are already among the lowest in the country, with more than one in five employees—430,000 working people—earning less than the living wage. With prices for almost all commodities rising, in a recent survey more than 40% of workers in the region said that their finances were worse off now than just a month ago—and fuel has clearly been a major part of both the increase in the cost of living and their perception of how hard things are getting.
	Families in the south-west have experienced a double burden in terms of wages and the cost of utilities. Water charges in the south-west are among the highest in the country, with customers paying £150 more than the national average on their yearly water bills, while energy bills and fuel prices are increasingly unaffordable across whole swathes of the country, as we have heard. Figures given in a written answer on 7 November showed that 16.4% of families living in England in 2010 were in fuel poverty, but that number is expected to rise significantly.
	The south-west has a large rural population. My constituency is not rural, but Plymouth depends on its hinterland. The wider economic benefits to the region and Plymouth come from people in our travel-to-work area, which is largely rural. In addition to the high water costs and low wages, people in the rural hinterland are paying about £10 a week more on petrol, diesel and motor oil than the average UK household. Rural populations are struggling with the cost of living in general—on average about £2,000 per year for a rural household over and above that of urban inner-city town dwellers such as my constituents. Of course, some of the people in the south-west will have chosen to live in a rural area. Some might well have a second home there and be quite well off, but there are huge swathes of the
	population across Cornwall and Devon who are agricultural workers or who are working in small food processing factories, and they are not on very high incomes at all.
	Bus services in rural areas are infrequent, so elderly people often need to drive to Derriford hospital. That can be a long journey for a lot of people. They might need to be driven to the hospital. This all costs money. Young people can feel isolated in rural areas. Unless their parents can afford to drive them into town, they can be stuck and feel very much out of the loop. That is not good for social cohesion. We know that many families are having to curtail the number of journeys they make. Travelling to and from rural areas for work can also be extortionately expensive. I recently met a Plymouth man who travelled out to Liskeard to work. He had been unemployed, and he was delighted to have got a job in Liskeard, but the petrol was costing him between £60 and £70 a week and the situation was becoming unsustainable. He was really keen to work, and he was willing to travel long distances, but it was becoming impossible.

David Simpson: I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that we have a land border in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) seemed to have inside knowledge that the price of fuel might not go up, but if it were to do so, the amount of fuel smuggling from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland would increase, and the Exchequer would lose a lot of revenue.

Alison Seabeck: The hon. Gentleman speaks from the experience of his own constituency, and the Chancellor will need to consider that very serious point when he sets out his Budget later this year.
	There has also been a huge increase in housing costs. Average house prices are now 11.5 times higher than the median income, and private rents are set to rise by an estimated 65% over the next 10 years. That will create huge cost of living issues for people in my constituency. Road fuel prices are higher by about 2.1p a litre in rural areas and, on average, people who live in rural areas travel 53% further than those who live in urban areas. They are also less able to access public transport alternatives. In my area, there are poor rail services down to Plymouth and we have no airport. All those factors push people into cars, and rises in the price of fuel make it extremely difficult for our economy and the economies of individual families to thrive.
	I shall finish my speech early because you pulled me up for intervening, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Chancellor will have listened to his colleagues on the Government Benches, and that he will also take seriously those on the Opposition Benches as we go through the Lobby tonight to make it absolutely clear that we need a temporary halt to the increase.

Lindsay Hoyle: I should just like to point out to the hon. Lady that she has not given me back a minute, because she has taken an intervention. So we ended up with nothing!

Peter Aldous: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) who, like me, represents a periphery
	constituency. It is appropriate that we are having this debate now, less than a month before the Chancellor delivers his autumn statement on 5 December, when I expect him to set out his strategy on fuel duty, at least for the short to medium term. It is important, in deciding whether to proceed with the planned 3p increase in January, that he should be fully aware of the impact that fuel duty increases have on hard-pressed families and on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. It is a concern that my constituents very much emphasise to me both in conversation and in correspondence.
	Fuel duty is a highly regressive form of taxation, which hits those on low and fixed incomes particularly hard. Those in isolated, more remote periphery locations such as East Anglia and my Waveney constituency feel the impact hardest. The car there is very much a necessity and not a luxury. In Waveney, the average monthly distance to travel to work is just over 400 miles, while in Kensington and Chelsea, where salaries are dramatically higher and where there is a far better public transport system, it is just under 210 miles.
	I am acutely aware of the dilemma of those constituents who travel to work from, say, Lowestoft to Norwich—a round trip of 50 miles every day. At the moment, their commuting costs are biting savagely into their weekly budgets. Moreover, there are jobs in the leisure, tourism and care sectors where the hours of work are such that using public transport is no option whatsoever.
	I am very much aware of the excellent campaigning work carried out by FairFuelUK, championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). As well as highlighting the crippling impact of fuel duty on households and businesses, it backed up its case with hard evidence. Its most recent research, carried out by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, shows that if the 3p rise goes ahead, 35,000 jobs will be placed at risk, growth will be cut by 0.1% and 40% less tax revenue than the Government had predicted will be raised. In the weeks leading up to 5 December, it is important that the Government look at this evidence very carefully.
	Over the past two and a half years, the Government have pursued the right course for the British economy. There is no such place as a safe harbour in the world today, but they have taken us out of the eye of the storm. Interest rates remain low; there has been no run on the pound; and the markets are looking at other countries that have failed to put their houses in order. Plenty of obstacles remain ahead: the ongoing crisis in the eurozone; rising food prices as a result of poor harvests around the globe; and fluctuating oil prices, which have the potential to stall the recovery.
	There is a concern, too, that anti-competitive practices in the petrol trade are distorting the market. It has been suggested that £30 a barrel is added through speculation. This results in consumers not paying a fair price at the pumps. It is vital that the UK economy is not exposed to such unfair profiteering. I urge the Government to ensure that the oil market is fully transparent and that a suitable supervisory framework is in place, with increased fines for market manipulation.
	While it is right that we are having this debate tonight, there are fundamental flaws in the Opposition motion. First, the Government have a proven track record of listening and of understanding the impact of fuel duty
	on families and businesses. They have already delayed and cancelled increases that the previous Administration put in place. Fuel is 10p a litre cheaper than it would otherwise have been, while the Government’s policies in this area have delivered savings to families of £159 a year.
	Secondly, the feedback from FairFuelUK’s meeting with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury suggests that the Treasury is studying seriously the report produced and presented to it. I get the impression that its findings are being carefully considered and will be taken fully into account in the autumn statement.
	Finally, I fear that the Opposition’s means of paying for this postponement do not stand up to scrutiny. The Government have already secured many of the savings that can be achieved through successful clamping down on tax evasion and avoidance. I fear there is nothing much left there.
	I shall oppose the Opposition motion and support the amendment. In doing so, I say that the time to scrap the increase in fuel duty is in the autumn statement on 5 December. I urge the Government to do so at that time.

Pamela Nash: I am disappointed that we have been forced to call this debate this evening. It shows just how out of touch with the public this Government are that they have yet to postpone January’s 3p increase in fuel tax. Dropping hints about the autumn statement is just not good enough at this stage.
	I am sure that the high volume of correspondence I have received on fuel prices is replicated for Members across the Chamber, as fuel prices are now cutting into the quality of life of each of our constituents. In particular, I have been hearing from those who live in the rural and farming areas of my constituency. Rural sparsity, combined with the ongoing decline in rural bus services and a loss of local services, means that a car is a necessity in many rural areas, not a luxury. The Scottish Labour party has been calling for the re-regulation of bus services, as the Scottish Government’s policies have resulted in essential routes being unsubsidised and in many cases scrapped. Although voluntary projects such as the “Getting Better Together” project, in Shotts, and our regional transport partnership, Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, are working hard to fill the gaps, it will take direct action from the Government—to start with, by regulating our bus services—to fix this problem across the board.
	The point is that the public transport infrastructure at this point is not at a level that could possibly allow the majority of people in rural communities to give up their cars without risking their quality of life and becoming increasingly isolated. The situation is becoming impossible for those who are having to decide to give up their cars, when there are little, if any, alternative forms of transport where they live. Every rise in fuel costs places a disproportionate burden on our rural communities, and now they feel that enough is enough.
	It makes no sense to the Opposition that the Government, who postponed the fuel tax rise in August, seem to be ploughing ahead with this rise. Although we are cautiously
	coming out of a double-dip recession, most people have yet to feel this in their pockets. They are not yet seeing the difference in their bank statements at the end of the month. Incomes are still frozen, and the cost of essential bills continues to rocket. Those living in our towns are not escaping the assault on their standard of living, either. Increasingly, many have had to make difficult choices every day about using their car or paying other important bills.
	Chapelhall, where I live, is home to many commuters. Commuters live where they can access more affordable housing, and homes are cheaper the further away they are from public transport links. Commuters also have to travel further to find jobs, as the employment market has yet to recover fully. This means that millions of commuters across the UK depend entirely on their cars to access work. Rocketing fuel costs are making work pay less.
	I am particularly concerned about those of my constituents living with a disability that makes it difficult to travel. Labour introduced Motability way back in the 1970s to ensure that those living with a disability who require a car in order to travel can afford it. However, the costs are mounting for those running a car on Motability, and I have yet to hear the Government announce an increase in disability living allowance alongside the planned increase in fuel tax in order to plug the gaps caused by these additional costs. Some of the most vulnerable in our society will have to limit their car use, to the extent that it will jeopardise their chances of having a decent quality of life.

Robert Halfon: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and for her speech. Given what she has just said, does she not recognise that the Government increased benefits by 5% and still froze fuel duty this year?

Pamela Nash: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the Government have taken other measures such as increasing VAT and cutting other benefits, which have had an adverse effect on the people I am speaking about. The fact that the Office of Fair Trading is conducting an inquiry into fuel prices reflects the public’s deep concern about the cost of fuel.
	In press reports today, Government Back Benchers referred repeatedly to this debate as the cost of living debate; I have not heard it called the fuel duty debate at all. In his opening speech, the Minister seemed to talk about everything but fuel duty. It seems that Government Members want to talk about anything other than fuel tonight, because they know that the country is not on their side. I expected more Tory Back Benchers to be in the Chamber this evening trying to explain to their constituents why they are voting against our motion on fuel duty. I suspect that many of them are watching ITV to see their colleague in the “bug burial” in the jungle.
	It is clear to Opposition Members, and to the thousands of constituents who have written to us about fuel duty in recent weeks and months, that the Government will be out of touch with the people of this country, who have been drastically affected by the increased cost of living, if they do not announce this evening the postponement of January’s fuel tax increase.

Christopher Pincher: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash). I gently point out to her that there are twice as many Government Back Benchers here tonight than Labour Back Benchers, and that is for an Opposition day debate, but we will let that one lie.
	It is great pleasure to participate in this debate, and I congratulate the Opposition on tabling this motion, because it gives us all an opportunity to stand back and admire the brazen brass neck, the unbridled cynicism and the naked opportunism that characterises it. It seems that the shadow Chancellor is almost congenitally unable to stand and watch a bandwagon pass by without having the urge to jump aboard it. However, it seems that he has been overtaken with uncharacteristic modesty this evening, because he is not here; he has fallen silent. For the past few days he has been beating his chest, beating the drum and complaining about fuel duty increases, but now, this evening, he has donned the mantle of the mute. A week after Guy Fawkes night, he has lit the blue touch paper and withdrawn to a safe distance, leaving his ciphers and his sidekicks to propose and support his motion—and well he might, because we have heard a chorus of amnesia from Labour Members. We have heard them speak forgetting all they have done in the past, forgetting what they are saying while they are saying it and forgetting everything they have said when they have sat down. But we will not forget: we will not forget the meagre 75p increase in pensions; we will not forget the 12 hikes in fuel duty; and we will not forget the increase in fuel poverty between 2004 and 2009. I want to touch on that issue, because during Labour’s tenure—

Bill Esterson: According to the House of Commons Library, the proportion of a litre of fuel paid in tax rose from 59% to 75% between 1990 and 1997, whereas between 1997 and 2010 it fell back to 65%. Does the hon. Gentleman accept those figures?

Christopher Pincher: All I will confirm is that fuel duty would have increased many more times had Labour’s Budget been implemented and that 2.8 million more people fell into fuel poverty between 2004 and 2010 as a result of the policies that the Labour Government pursued. The fact of the matter is that energy prices went up on the watch of the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Secretary of State—that is all he did; he stood there and watched as millions more people fell into fuel poverty.
	I am pleased to say that in my constituency fuel poverty has fallen by 5% in the past year or so, and we estimate that by 2020 it will have fallen by about 25%. Thanks to the Government introducing and increasing the cold weather payments, and thanks to the discount of about £120 a year that will help 600,000 vulnerable pensioners, these people will be better off. The Government are helping them, but it is not enough. If we try to stick sticking plaster over a problem such as fuel poverty, we will not resolve it. That is like treating pneumonia with Angiers junior aspirin. What we really need to do is get to the actual causes of fuel poverty. In the 10 years between 2000 and 2010, under the previous Labour Government, £25 billion was spent on trying to alleviate fuel poverty yet the increases in fuel prices swamped
	those measures. Now, three quarters of those who live in the most energy-inefficient homes are in fuel poverty compared with one in 20 of those living in the most energy-efficient.
	If we are serious about dealing with the problem of fuel poverty and dealing with one of the greatest challenges in the cost of living, we need to get a grip on the demand side of the equation. That means ensuring that homes are properly insulated. Not only that, but they should have proper and modern boilers and smart meters so that people can for the first time take control over their energy demands and reduce them. That is what the green deal is all about.
	We need also to deal with the supply side of the energy equation. A generation ago, there were 15 energy suppliers, but that number has now reduced to just six. A generation ago, energy bills were relatively straightforward but now people are confused by an array of tariffs. A generation ago, 75% of people rarely if ever switched their energy suppliers. That is still the case. If we are serious about dealing with one of the biggest challenges and biggest drains on people’s means, we need to deal with energy costs.
	I hope that the Government’s proposals in the draft Energy Bill, to which I look forward, will ensure that people are put on the best and cheapest tariffs and that we invest in new nuclear and shale gas, which Labour left behind for 10 years, so that we secure our energy supply and are not exposed to international gas and hydrocarbon volatility, which has caused so much distress to bill payers over the past 10 years. The Government must also be careful in that Bill, because although we need to ensure that we have a sufficient, resilient and diverse supply of energy, we must ensure that the mechanism to deliver that capacity does not place undue burdens on the industry that will deliver it.
	The industry reckons that the capacity mechanism could increase its costs, which it could pass on, by anywhere between £3 billion and £13 billion, meaning that anywhere north of £14 a year could be added to energy bills. We need to ensure that the Energy Bill does not have the perverse effect of adding to energy bills as it tries to reduce them. I hope that the Minister will pass on that message to his colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
	For the moment, let us thank the Labour party for tabling the motion and enjoy the theatre of the absurd. It is an absurd prospect: the Labour party introduced the fuel duty escalator, increased fuel duty and wanted to hike it again if it won the last election, but it is now proposing to freeze fuel duty by closing the tax loopholes that its own labyrinthine Treasury policies allowed. I am sure that the Chancellor is aware of the cost to the country of fuel duty, but I think that the country is also aware of the cost to it of the previous Labour Government—a grisly experiment that it will not want to repeat.

Sheila Gilmore: Anyone who listened to “The Westminster Hour” last night—perhaps it is only sad political anoraks who do so—will know that Ministers and Government Whips have been at their Back Benchers over the weekend, and no doubt for some days before, feeding them the line that they should not worry because everything will be all right in the autumn statement and the fuel rise will not really
	happen, so there is no need for them to vote against the Government tonight. Clearly, the Government are terrified that there will be more votes against them. However, it is not fair to people in Britain to tell them, with a nod and a wink, “It should be all right.” Government Members have sought to criticise our motion, on the ground that we should find a way to pay for not going ahead with the increase, but what they are really saying—the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) gave this away completely—is, “This is not going to happen, but we will not tell you how we are going to pay for it.” Therefore, they cannot lecture us and accuse us of hypocrisy.

Stewart Jackson: On the issue of fiscal strategies and paying for things, does the hon. Lady really think that it is a compelling case to say that the catch-all concept of addressing tax avoidance is the way that the Opposition will pay for any reductions that they make to duty? This afternoon, I sat on the Public Accounts Committee and listened to evidence from Google, Amazon and Starbucks, and it quickly became apparent to me that, over 13 years, the Labour Government allowed crony capitalism and did nothing about tax avoidance.

Sheila Gilmore: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think he has just walked into the Chamber to make it; I do not think he was present throughout the debate. I am glad that he and his Government want to act on these issues, and we look forward to seeing—perhaps in the autumn statement—the measures that they intend to put in place.
	We heard from the Minister nothing about the fuel duty increase, but a lot of rehashed issues to do with the economy. There have been accusations that the Opposition are suffering from amnesia, but the amnesia that the Government are suffering from is even more profound; they seem to have forgotten that when, two and a half years ago, they came into office, they had an emergency Budget, which, we were told, would sort out the economy. If Ministers recall, at the time of that Budget and in the autumn statement of 2010, we were told that the economy would grow over the next two years, and that they would reduce, and indeed eliminate, the deficit in their term in government. They have since had to concede that there has not been that growth, and that they will not eliminate the deficit over that period, so if anyone has amnesia, it is the Government. That happened because of the absolute insistence on trying to cut the deficit so quickly, including by making cuts in investment spending; that has produced a lot of the problems that we have.
	Even some of the Government’s supporters, including David Smith, who writes on economics in The Sunday Times, said recently that it was a huge mistake for the Government to cut investment in their first year—in their emergency Budget—and in their next Budget. They have tried, in some small way, to say that they will reinstate investment, but the damage has been done. Investment that could have been made in affordable housing and school building was cut—for ideological reasons, I would contend. As a result, there has been no growth for most of the period, and people have suffered from very high prices, in many respects, at a time when many people are on short time, and are not earning what they did.

Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Lady think that Scottish Labour’s cuts commission’s plans to do away with free personal care and free bus passes for the elderly, and to introduce tuition fees, would lower the cost of living for Scottish people, who are suffering in the very conditions that she describes?

Sheila Gilmore: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made those comments in an intervention, because I heard him say that earlier from a sedentary position.
	Cuts have been made in Scotland—the hon. Gentleman should be absolutely clear about that. They have been made to social care in Scotland, partly because of the council tax freeze. I heard the Economic Secretary boast about that freeze, but it is an extremely regressive policy. For people who do not pay council tax because they receive council tax benefit, that policy has not benefited them by one penny. In Scotland, those people have not benefited for five years. Indeed, it gives a far greater benefit to people who pay the highest level of tax.
	As a result of the council tax freeze, councils in Scotland have suffered a great deal, as councils in England are now suffering. A service that has suffered is social care. I will not take lessons from the hon. Gentleman, because cuts have already been made in Scotland as a result of his Government’s policies. Those things will happen in England too. I would not be as proud as the Economic Secretary of the council tax freeze, because it has a severe downside for many people who depend heavily on the services that councils provide, which are important for their living standards. We must not forget that.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) mentioned, people who work in social care are not only on low wages but they are told by their employers, who often have outsourced contracts from councils that are trying desperately to make savings, to use their own car to travel to do the job. They are not usually paid for travel time, and they are not refunded if they have to park somewhere and pay parking charges. They are on the lowest income levels, they are working hard in a hugely important service, and they deserve much more attention from us. They are suffering from the increases in fuel tax.
	The Minister said yet again all this stuff about all the jobs that the Government claim have been created. As I have said before, if we say that there have been 1 million new jobs since the election and that that is a huge improvement, we should remember that, at the beginning of 2011, only eight months after the Government came to power, they said that they had created 500,000 jobs. I contend that those jobs were created as a result of the economic stimulus from the previous Government. In the following 22 months, another 500,000 jobs were created at a slower rate of growth. Many of those jobs are part time, which has increased spending on welfare benefits, thus increasing the problems that the Government face in trying to balance their financial books. People with part-time jobs claim housing benefit—98% of new housing benefit claimants are people in employment—and they claim more tax credits, because their hours of work have decreased. That is not a stable basis on which to proceed. If the Government want to scrap the proposed fuel increase in January, perhaps they should simply tell the nation that today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am reducing the time limit to six minutes for remaining speeches. I remind speakers that we have to conclude the debate before the winding-up speeches begin at 9.40 pm. If there are lots of interventions, that will cut speeches even further. I call Martin Vickers.

Martin Vickers: It is a pleasure to take part in a debate that has featured knowledgeable and passionate speeches. I make no bones about it: what my constituents want—what I want—is the postponement and preferably the cancellation of the increase.
	It is not unknown for Oppositions to jump on bandwagons—my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) referred to that—but it is strange when an Opposition do so to abandon their own policies. The wheels have come off this bandwagon. Effective opposition is hardly evident this evening. What we are hearing is, “We don’t like our policy that we introduced. We’d like you to postpone it for three months.” Is that positive opposition? Clearly, Labour Members are going to have much more time on their hands to consider how to build effective opposition.
	I remind the House that already, thanks to the actions of this Government, petrol is 10p a litre cheaper than it would have been had Labour’s increases been introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who has done some sterling work on the issue, mentioned that the cost of living is not just about fuel. It is about energy and a host of other things. The proposed increase goes to the heart of those cost of living issues.
	I represent a predominantly working-class constituency where the average wage is about £20,500. That is £3,000 less than the average for the Yorkshire and Humberside region. We have had a few setbacks in recent weeks, most notably the 500 redundancies at Kimberly-Clark in Barton-upon-Humber, but there is growth in the local area. In particular, the road haulage industry represents an important part of the local economy. It is based around the Immingham-Stallingborough area and it is vital to the local economy.
	Many speakers have mentioned being out on the periphery. Cleethorpes is a peripheral area. The surrounding hinterland is rural and many of the people who live there work on the Humber bank, a considerable distance away. There is no doubt that the tax in question affects them greatly.

Jake Berry: In Rossendale and Darwen, we have a rural hinterland. We are a working-class constituency and we have low wages. We are already paying the 3p fuel tax because our fuel is 3p more expensive in Tesco in Rawtenstall than it is in the adjoining town. Will my hon. Friend say what experience he has in his constituency of this rural disparity in fuel prices?

Martin Vickers: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Yes, the situation that he describes in his constituency is very similar to mine. However, it is welcome that North Lincolnshire council, which is Conservative controlled, is particularly mindful of the
	impact of motoring costs and is at present considering the possibility of extending free parking, which has been an issue in the local area. That shows how local authorities can help to boost the local economy, particularly the high streets.
	When I was preparing for this debate, I skimmed through the debate that we had about a year ago, to which I contributed. That debate took place before the Chancellor made a previous reduction. I noticed that I referred to fairness. I caution the Government again that it is rather dangerous always to talk about fairness. Of course all policies are intended to be fair. I am well aware that the Government want to be fair, but human nature being what it is, a policy is fair only if it benefits us. If it benefits our neighbour, we tend to think it is unfair. I urge the Government to reflect that when they talk about these issues.
	It matters not whether our constituents are white-collared, blue-collared or dog-collared, for that matter. They are all hit by fuel increases. The Chancellor may already have made his decision, but if not, I urge him to reflect on the contributions that have been made this evening. It is a vital subject, which will not go away. The idea that the Labour party has proposed tonight, that we abandon the rise or cancel it for three months, is nonsense. If the Opposition are trying to tempt Conservative rebels into the Lobby, they should at least have a positive view and suggest three years, rather than just three months. It is pathetic.

Robin Walker: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend that the Opposition motion is massively unambitious. Does he agree that the research we have seen from FairFuelUK shows that we should actually be cutting fuel duty, rather than freezing it or postponing an increase?

Martin Vickers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have certainly studied the FairFuelUK report. Indeed, the all-party group on fair fuel, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, has done considerable work on it, and I urge the Government to reflect on its recommendations.
	I know that the Government have listened to the debate. Their amendment makes it clear that they want to do more to help with the cost of living, but who could disagree with that? What we actually want to see is some positive response from them. I know that they are not going to announce this evening what will be in the autumn statement, but we are three weeks away from something that could have a decisive impact on the local economy, certainly in my constituency, and a real impact on hard-working households there. I will conclude by saying to the Labour party, “Get your act together.” I will certainly be supporting the Government in the Lobby this evening and know that is in the best interests of those I represent.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I have to reduce the time limit again to five minutes, because interventions have slowed us down. I remind Members that if they take interventions it will have to come off their time, because we will start the wind-ups at 20 minutes to 10.

Bill Esterson: As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) is gathering votes from Government Members as we sit here, we find out that she lasted only five minutes of a bush tucker trial. Meanwhile, back in the real world, her constituents and mine are suffering grievously because of the cuts in living standards that have resulted from the Conservative party’s economic policies. The real struggle of many of our constituents stands in stark contrast to her outrageous behaviour. The impact of fuel prices is one of many worries that have brought living standards under attack. I wonder how many people out there in the country think it is appropriate for a Member of this House to be away for five weeks—

Christopher Pincher: Like Gordon Brown.

Bill Esterson: And that is when the country faces the toughest economic situation of modern times—[ Interruption. ] Goodness knows what the hon. Lady’s constituents think, but what of her colleagues? Judging by their reaction to what I have just said, they clearly approve. They have all said that they want to scrap the fuel duty rise, but they will not vote for it. Maybe they should all be in Australia cheering on Nadine, rather than rejecting efforts to help all our constituents.
	There are many pressures on living standards and a lot of money has been taken out of the economy, affecting businesses and jobs and delivering hardship for many people in this country. As I have said, it is extraordinary that Government Members will not vote for a measure that would do exactly what they all say they support.
	Let me say a little about some of my constituents—the pensioners, working families, young people out of work and commuters—all of whom will be hit by the Government’s failure to cancel the fuel duty rise. Pensioners, some of whom have to choose between heating and eating, face increased food prices and, at the same time, will have to pay more for bus and taxi fares or, if they have a car—some pensioners do—they will find it very expensive to run. It is no wonder we are seeing more and more people relying on food banks. The Government tell pensioners to deal with rising energy costs by going on the internet and looking at uSwitch, but my pensioners tell me that most of them have never used a computer, let alone the internet, and so would not know where to start. How is that a solution to rising energy costs and falling living standards? You tell me, Madam Deputy Speaker, or perhaps the Minister can tell me when he winds up the debate. That is before the granny tax has taken money from pensioners to pay for tax cuts for millionaires. Then there was the young man whose building firm was wound up because he and his partner could not get any work. He now works in a shop for £6.50 an hour and barely has enough money coming in to put food on the table and pay the rent, let alone put fuel in his car.
	The least we could do is to make some kind of move to help these people by cancelling the fuel tax increase. As I said in an earlier intervention, and as FairFuelUK has demonstrated, its effect would be a fall in GDP and a loss of 35,000 jobs, so no jobs would be created for the more than 1 million young people who are out of work. At the same time, the tax credit cuts will hit part-time
	workers, and that is where jobs are being created. Part-time jobs have increased, but not the full-time ones that would help to build prosperity. Many small businesses tell me that they are getting by with fewer staff who are working longer hours. HGV owner-drivers tell me that the cost of filling their lorries has gone up and up, and all those increased fuel costs have to be passed on, either through cuts in their own income or price rises that hit the living standards of those on the lowest incomes. VAT is up, fuel prices are up, food prices are up, energy prices are up, and taxes are up—except, of course, for those millionaires.
	Tonight we, as the House of Commons, have an opportunity to vote to cancel the fuel duty rise, not least because of the impact that it would have in the coldest part of the year when people rely on fuel for their cars more than at any other time. The Government have an opportunity, if they choose, to do this by closing tax avoidance loopholes and targeting the Starbucks, Amazons and Googles of this world, thereby helping those whose living standards have suffered.

Priti Patel: Like all right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches, I welcome this debate and the opportunity that it presents to highlight the gross hypocrisy of Labour Members over fuel duty and the cost of living. Despite their contributions to the debate and the words in their motion, Labour’s record in government shows how shallow is their so-called concern about this issue. Today’s debate ranks as nothing more than a sanctimonious attempt by Labour Members to exploit the anxiety of the public for nothing more than superficial reasons of political opportunism. It is exactly these kinds of antics that erode public trust and confidence in politics.
	Labour Members have come to the House today to argue for freezes in fuel duty, but at the time of their last Budget in March 2010 they came here to pledge the continuation of above-inflation increases in fuel duty for the duration of this Parliament. They may be afflicted by the collective amnesia that we have seen today regarding their record in office, but my constituents remember the misery inflicted on them as Labour presided over huge increases in the cost of fuel and the cost of living. In particular, they remember what happened in 2000, when the price of petrol at the pump surpassed 80p per litre. They have not forgotten the appalling way in which the Labour Government handled the matter back then and their failure to get to grips with the crisis and the impact that the fuel price increases were having on businesses and families. Despite various promises at the time, no action followed. Fuel prices consistently increased under the Labour Government. If Labour Members were genuinely concerned about the impact of the level of fuel duty on families and businesses throughout the country, they would not have increased fuel duty 12 times when they were in power.
	By contrast, this Government have recognised the burden that fuel costs add to household budgets and businesses. As my hon. Friend the Minister highlighted, they should be congratulated on freezing Labour’s planned fuel duty increases and abolishing the fuel duty escalator, even managing to cut fuel duty by 1p. It is now 10p a
	litre lower than it would have been under a Labour Government, saving families £159 this year alone. The overall tax burden under this Government is lower than it would have been under Labour, as is the deficit. This country has been saved from the indignity of taking a begging bowl to the International Monetary Fund by dealing with the financial mess that the previous Government left for this Government. As a staunch believer in the power of low-tax economies, I would like the Government to go further in cutting this duty and lowering the overall tax burden, but of course Ministers are limited in what they can do because of the huge levels of borrowing for public spending that have existed.
	One astonishing thing about fuel duty is that it raises far more money than is spent on our roads. The mismatch between the amount raised from motorists and the amount spent on improving our road network has caused huge concern to my constituents. Under Labour, revenue received from fuel duty rose considerably. In 1996-97, total receipts from excise duty on oils were £17.2 billion. However, when the Labour party left office, they were around £27 billion, and that is without taking vehicle excise duty into consideration. Despite that extra money from motorists—over 50% more in cash terms—Labour failed to invest in the road network, especially in Essex. My constituents have not forgotten that. Vital road schemes, such as the project to dual the A120, were completely axed. Labour pillaged the pockets of motorists in my constituency and gave them nothing in return. Instead of investing in infrastructure in Essex, Labour blew the money on unsustainable levels of public spending and the rising cost of debt interest payments. Many other schemes, including the Dartford road crossing, also demonstrate that point.
	In conclusion, I want the cost of motoring to fall and investment in our road infrastructure in Essex to increase. That will never be achieved by anything suggested by the Labour party, including the shallow statements that we have heard today, hence my opposition to the motion.

Catherine McKinnell: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and her characteristically warm-hearted contribution to the debate.
	This has been an important and much-needed debate. Members on both sides of the House have shown the strength of feeling that is out there on our roads against the extra burden that this fuel duty rise would place on families and businesses, at a time when prices are still rising faster than wages. Households that are already suffering from the Government’s failed economic policies cannot afford to be hit by an extra 3p per litre, especially with fuel duty already 15p more per litre than it was at the general election.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) well summed up as hypothetical nonsense Conservative Members’ attempts to distract from their failure to support the motion by suggesting that were Labour in government the fuel duty might be 10p per litre more. Labour Members have been calling for a temporary VAT cut to take 3p per litre off the price of fuel immediately, but with the Government refusing to act, we are now calling on Members to support the motion to delay this extra tax that will hit families and businesses, slowing growth even further.
	A clampdown on tax avoidance by employment agencies and umbrella companies would raise more than enough money to delay this rise until April. It would also bring an end to the exploitation of workers under those schemes, who are often left worse off as agencies pocket the extra profit from avoiding tax, leaving employees at risk of being pursued for that tax in later years.
	There have been many excellent contributions to this debate, as well as some not so excellent. Many Members, especially those from rural communities, have raised concerns about the impact that the increase in fuel duty will have on them, and I mention in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash). The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made a well-considered and reasonable contribution to the debate, but unfortunately failed to explain why he will not support the motion tonight. The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has long campaigned on this issue. He concluded his characteristically well-considered speech by saying that he is proud to support the Government tonight as the Chancellor is in “serious listening mode”, but that he hopes they will not let us down. Well, many of our constituents are sitting at home tonight, hoping that the Government will not let them down. Our economy has just emerged from a double-dip recession—a recession, I must add, that was made in Downing street. That emergence is welcome but there is no room for complacency. Our recovery is still fragile and people are feeling the struggle.
	In government, Labour either cut, froze or delayed planned fuel duty rises 13 times because we thought it was appropriate, and did so twice following the financial crisis because we recognised that in a fragile economic environment, a postponement would provide practical help to ordinary people and businesses feeling the squeeze. The Government claim that they are in strong “listening mode”—Members on the Government Benches certainly seem to have been given that reassurance.

Robert Halfon: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her gracious remarks, but why did she and her colleagues vote against the Government when they cut fuel duty last year?

Catherine McKinnell: How will Government Members explain to their constituents why they have not voted for a freeze in fuel duty tonight, when the overwhelming consensus is that that is much needed by families and businesses up and down the country?
	Let us hope the Chancellor is listening to the debate. The price of a litre of petrol is now £1.36, 5p more than when the Chancellor agreed to defer the duty increase in August and 15p more than at the general election. The tax on a tank of petrol in 2010 was £37.60, but it has now risen to £40.30. If we do not delay the 3p increase tonight—if hon. Members do not vote to freeze it—it will go up again in January to £42.20. A family could spend £200 a year more on fuel tax in 2013 than they spent in 2010. Families cannot afford that £200. The increase in VAT has cost a family with children £450 each year, pensioners are facing extra burdens after the granny tax, cuts in child tax credits will cost some families up to £545 a year, and cuts to working tax credits mean that those on low incomes will lose up to
	£3,870 a year if they cannot increase their hours at work. That is the impact of this Government’s polices on family budgets.
	Small businesses, too, are struggling. The Government’s flagship project Merlin agreement with the banks has flopped and failed, and much-needed cash is simply not getting through to help businesses to expand and create jobs. Businesses need a break, and a freeze in fuel duty would provide it. That is why the Opposition have tabled the motion. We want to give the Government and Government Back Benchers the chance to join us and vote in favour of easing the burden for people up and down the country who will be hit by the fuel duty increase.
	It is clear how the Opposition proposal could be paid for. The Government need to take urgent action to crack down on tax avoidance schemes by employment agencies and umbrella companies that classify part of their employees’ pay as a reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses and claim back the tax relief. In most cases, employees do not see even a fraction of the extra profits that companies make as a result. In some cases, workers are not even aware that their pay is being manipulated in that way, but if they end up with too few national insurance contributions, they lose out. They could even be liable to repay the tax and national insurance and end up personally out of pocket if Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs successfully challenges the scheme. HMRC’s figures forecast that the tax loss from such schemes in 2012-13 will be £650 million, but more recent estimates put the figure at more like £1 billion, as more companies jump on the bandwagon. Even a conservative estimate of what could be raised from clamping down on that one area of tax avoidance would more than cover the £350 million needed to pay for the fuel duty delay.
	The Opposition understand that the rules exist, but enforcement has been lacking. The Government’s cuts to HMRC—an additional 10,000 jobs are set to be lost by 2015, and £2.1 billion has been taken out of its budget—have made the job even harder. It is essential that we take action. Companies that play fair and pay their tax properly and transparently are disadvantaged by those that cheat the system. The tax that should be paid and is avoided, or in some cases illegally evaded, is sorely needed to support our struggling economy.
	The Government have lots of tough talk on tax avoidance but very little action. The Opposition motion calls on the Government to get a grip and clamp down on tax avoidance and to use the money where it is needed. Government Members know that that is what their constituents want and need. Nods and winks from the Chancellor will not fill their petrol tanks. Without a proper commitment from him, Members should support the motion tonight. If MPs unite today and vote for the motion, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will have no choice but to see sense and give that reassurance to families, motorists and businesses that we are on their side.

David Gauke: We have seen this evening how what might have looked like a clever wheeze to the Opposition on Friday looks opportunistic on Monday and merely exposes
	their lack of credibility and consistency. That is perhaps a pity: as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) pointed out, the cost of living is an important issue.
	I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their contributions today—and, indeed, Opposition Members. In particular, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Witham (Priti Patel) and, perhaps above all, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who, unlike Labour, has a record of consistency on fuel duty.
	Given the general sense of amnesia on the part of the Opposition, perhaps I can begin by setting out a little of the context, which was the set of policies proposed by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), for reducing the deficit—his discretionary fiscal tightening. It was a plan seen as inadequate by the International Monetary Fund, the CBI, the Governor of the Bank of England, the credit rating agencies and, judging by the general election result, the British people. In lacking credibility, the plan ran the risk of leading to higher interest rates, and as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary pointed out, for a mortgage of £100,000, a 1% increase in mortgage rates would lead to an additional £1,000 in mortgage payments.
	What did the Darling plan not include? It did not include anything to increase the personal allowance for income tax, which under our policies has resulted in cash savings of £546 for basic-rate taxpayers, or anything on council tax. Our freeze—in contrast to the average 5% increases we saw from Labour—saved average band D households nearly £220. What was actually in the Darling plan? We had an increase in employers’ national insurance contributions—the jobs tax, which was largely reversed by us, although that does not stop Labour calling for cuts in employer’s national insurance contributions. Most pertinent for today, we also saw fuel duty increases, with a 1p increase on 1 October 2010, a further 0.76p increase on 1 January 2011 and then 1p increases in real terms on 1 April in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.
	The argument we have heard this evening from Labour is: “It’s all very well; we made the announcement, but we had no intention of implementing those proposals”—that is one for fiscal credibility from Labour. Alternatively, the decision has been completely ignored, so that one could have missed the fact that any scheduled increases in fuel duty are Labour’s proposed rises. Now Labour’s argument is: “We intend to save the nation from our very own policies.” It is as though the last Labour Government never existed, but unfortunately for all of us they did, and we are having to live with the consequences.
	We know that high oil prices are causing real difficulties in ensuring that motoring remains affordable. We have listened to hard-pressed motorists and businesses, and we have acted. This Government have acted by easing the burden on motorists by £5.5 billion between 2011 and 2013 and by cutting fuel duty. We acted by cancelling the previous Government’s fuel duty escalator for the rest of the Parliament and by introducing a fair fuel stabiliser, so that fuel duty will increase by inflation only
	when oil prices are high. We acted to ensure that there will be no increase in fuel duty this year by deferring the next increase to January. That action ensures that duty at the pump will have been frozen for 21 months, and pump prices are now 10p lower than under Labour’s plans. Even following the inflation increase in January, average pump prices could still be approximately 6p a litre lower than if we had implemented the previous Government’s fuel duty escalator in 2011 and 2012. That means that a typical Ford Focus driver will be £159 better off between 2011 and 2013, and that the average haulier will benefit by approximately £4,900 during the same period.
	Labour Members argue that we could do more about tax avoidance, but that ignores the fact that under the present Government, yield raised by HMRC will increase by approximately 50%. It also ignores the fact that it was their party that voted against proposals to deal with disguised remuneration—a particular form of tax avoidance—which are now saving us £750 million a year. Instead, we hear about umbrella companies that are inflating workers’ travel and food expenses and reducing tax and national insurance contributions.
	In an article, the shadow Chancellor—who, of course, is not here today to defend his own policies—wrote of tax avoidance:
	“Ministers have failed to take tough action to stop it happening.”
	What he did not mention was that the Ministers in question must have been those who consulted on the matter in 2008 and then decided not to change the law. Even four years on, the shadow Chancellor cannot stop himself briefing against the Treasury team of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West.
	Incidentally, HMRC has strengthened compliance in this area. It has, among other things, won a large case worth £158 million. Moreover, changes in the national minimum wage scored an increase of £90 million, while protecting low-paid workers.
	The fact is that it is this Government who are reinvesting money in HMRC, enabling us to secure an additional yield of £7 billion by the end of the current Parliament. It is this Government who are increasing the number of people working in compliance and enforcement in HMRC. It is this Government who are introducing a general anti-abuse rule. It is this Government who have passed legislation to deal with disguised remuneration. None of those measures were introduced by the Labour party when it had the opportunity to do so.
	We have recognised the impact that high pump prices are having on motorists, families and businesses. The last Government had no credible plan to deal with the debts that they created and no credible plan to support motorists, but we have listened and responded. We have cut fuel duty, we have scrapped the fuel duty escalator, we have ensured that there will be no increase in fuel duty this year, we will have kept fuel duty frozen for 21 months, we will continue to support motorists with our fair fuel stabiliser, and we have tackled tax avoidance. We taken action not only on fuel duty, but on council tax and on income tax.
	The British people know that this is a Government who, within the considerable constraints left to us by the Labour party, will take action to protect them from rising pressures and difficulties with the cost of living. The Labour party has tabled an incredible, opportunist
	motion. I urge the House to reject it and to support the Government’s amendment, safe in the knowledge that we will do all we can to protect the British people from the rising cost of living.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 234, Noes 282.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 283, Noes 235.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	Resolved,
	That this House notes that as a result of the action this Government has taken to cut, cancel and delay fuel duty rises families will save around £159 on fuel costs by April 2013; further notes that under the previous administration’s plans, voted for by the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor, pump prices would be 10 pence higher than they currently are; also notes that motorists in island communities are benefiting from the fuel duty discount pilot scheme; recognises that this Government has introduced a number of other measures to support families including a £1,100 increase in the personal income tax allowance from April 2013, three years of council tax freezes and a cap on
	rail fares; commends that these measures have been in part affordable because of the Government’s record of success in tackling tax avoidance and evasion which is on track to raise an additional £7 billion per annum by the end of this Parliament; and welcomes the Government’s commitment to do more to help with the cost of living in the future subject to the constraints of the public finances.’.

Business without Debate

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
	That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motions in the name of Secretary Chris Grayling relating to Criminal Injuries Compensation and Crime and Security.—( Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION

That the draft Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012, which was laid before this House on 2 July, be approved.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 275, Noes 231.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

CRIME AND SECURITY

That the draft Victims of Overseas Terrorism Compensation Scheme 2012, which was laid before this House on 10 July, be approved. —(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

FAMILY LAW

That the draft Child Support Management of Payments and Arrears (Amendment) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (20 NOVEMBER)

Ordered,
	That at the sitting on Tuesday 20 November, notwithstanding sub-paragraph (2)(c)(ii) of Standing Order No. 14, the backbench business set down for consideration may be entered upon at any hour before the moment of interruption.—(Nicky Morgan.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (22 NOVEMBER)

Ordered,
	That at the sitting on Thursday 22 November, notwithstanding paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 14, the motion in the name of Secretary Theresa May relating to the Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism shall have precedence over the business determined by the Backbench Business Committee.—(Nicky Morgan.)

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
	That Matthew Hancock and James Wharton be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Guto Bebb and Justin Tomlinson be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

PETITION
	 — 
	Car Park Charges (Scunthorpe)

Nicholas Dakin: On an evening when we have focused on costs to the motorist, I am proud to present a petition on behalf of 2,400 or more residents of the Scunthorpe area. The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Scunthorpe and Ashby,
	Declares that the Petitioners support the call for shoppers, retailers and businesses across North Lincolnshire to be treated equally and fairly.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to provide 2 hours free car parking across all car parks in Scunthorpe and Ashby.
	And the Petitioners remain etc.
	[P001130]

EMPTY PROPERTIES (NEWCASTLE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Chi Onwurah: I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise such an important issue with the Minister. This is the first chance that I have had to congratulate him on his new job, and I hope that we can work together constructively on this very important issue. This is an opportunity for him to reflect on it from a fresh perspective.
	At my surgeries and in my postbag, week after week, housing is consistently the No. 1 issue that constituents bring to me. Every month I publish a constituency report, which includes casework. For example, October’s shows that my office dealt with 23 housing cases—more than those involving benefits, health or crime. Every case is unique and heart-breaking. One constituent desperately wants to move to be near his father, who is suffering from dementia. Another is ill in private rented accommodation that is in such bad condition that it is making her children ill. Another knows that he cannot afford to stay in his home when the Government implement their bedroom tax, and the stress is undermining his mental well-being.
	Everyone needs a safe and affordable roof over their head. I am sure that the Minister is a regular visitor to my website. He will have seen that I have recently launched a housing campaign, aimed at improving the availability of affordable housing in Newcastle. We need to build new housing and improve our stock, but Newcastle also has a large student population that needs quality housing at a fair price.
	The Minister will know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) has voiced concerns regarding the near permanent installation of letting boards in parts of Newcastle. The council is seeking ways to address that. However, the particular issue that I am concerned with today is the number of empty homes in Newcastle. There are currently more than 3,770 of them. At least, those are the ones we know about, mainly from council tax returns; the real figure is no doubt higher. The council estimates that there are probably a further 1,000 that could be brought back into use, and 99% of empty homes in Newcastle are in the private sector.
	Empty homes attract crime and antisocial behaviour. They reduce the value of surrounding properties, push rents up, and increase pressure on green-belt land. Often, they also attract vermin, such as rats, as several of Newcastle city council’s environmental officers know to their cost. One of Newcastle’s great local papers, the Evening Chronicle, has highlighted this issue a number of times.
	Those problems are intensified when clusters develop, as they have in several areas of Newcastle, including Benwell and Cowgate in my constituency, and Byker in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East. Empty homes also deprive people in need of homes. There are 4,430 people actively applying for housing in Newcastle, with many more on the waiting list. With just 1% of council housing stock empty, we need to build more homes, both social and private, and get as many empty homes back into use as possible.
	Last year, Labour retook Newcastle city council from the Liberal Democrats. Since then, Labour councillors have set about tackling the challenge of empty homes in the city. The council and its partners—the housing management organisation, Your Homes Newcastle, and housing partnerships—have a very good record on bringing empty homes back into use. Last year, over 300 such properties were brought back into use through direct help from the council. For example, the council works with responsible landlords to help them get empties back into use, including offering training to hundreds of landlords next year on how they can make better use of their properties. The council also offers a rent deposit scheme and a private rental service to remove obstacles, and provides a highly focused lettings support service that can deliver higher standards for existing and future tenants.
	That kind of effort is partly why Newcastle’s empty homes rate is below the national average, and one of the lowest of the “core cities” at just 3%. It is also why a French television crew recently came to Newcastle to look at the work that has been done and to learn from it. We have a certain “Je ne sais quoi”. As well as these and other schemes, the council has provided £500,000 to tackle the problem of empty properties. I was pleased to learn that the Government have made a commitment to match fund that, as the Minister will doubtless mention.
	For many of my constituents who are effectively homeless or inadequately housed that is not enough. We need more support from the Government. Unfortunately, there are still landlords with empty houses who are not prepared to work with the council and housing organisations, effectively preferring to see their properties go to rack and ruin. In those situations, the council has powers to issue empty dwelling management orders—EDMOs—and as a last resort, compulsory purchase orders, and Newcastle City council is fully prepared to use them to carry out its duties to the community.

Graham Jones: Will my hon. Friend add to that list councils’ ability to introduce selective licensing? Does she think, like me, that selective licensing should be at the discretion of the local authority, which should be able to broaden it and roll it out across a whole borough, rather than just selected areas?

Chi Onwurah: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The housing situation in many cities has been affected detrimentally by the number of houses in multiple occupancy, which I shall come on to in the case of Newcastle. Councils’ ability to manage the proliferation of HMOs, especially when they are concentrated in particular areas, is important if we are to ensure that the housing stock is adequate and diverse.
	I should like to make it clear that I am not waging a campaign against private landlords, who perform a useful and desirable service. Many of them offer homes of extremely good quality that provide good value for money. Nor do I want to see councils repossessing houses at every turn. However, I do believe that landlords—social and private—have a responsibility to their community. Does the Minister agree that property ownership comes with responsibilities as well as rights—a responsibility to the community in which the property is owned, and to the people of that community?
	Housing associations tell me that landlords often prefer to convert their houses to houses in multiple occupation, and would rather leave these HMOs empty in the hope of eventually attracting tenants—often, in the case of Newcastle, student tenants—who will pay higher rents for the same square footage. I do not think that is responsible. Landlords say they are reluctant to let HMOs to families because they fear that they will never get the planning permission, sometimes necessary, to change the house back to HMO status, having let it to a family. Would the Minister look specifically into ways of addressing this barrier, perhaps by removing the HMO designation should houses sit empty for more than, say, one year?
	The Government have fully committed themselves very publicly to localism and devolving powers to councils. Does the Minister support this? If so, could he explain to me why the Government are making it harder for councils to implement EDMOs? There is a statutory instrument currently before Parliament, No. 2625, which brings in a set of changes to EDMOs. From now on, councils will have to wait two years instead of the current six months before starting proceedings against private landlords. In addition, they will have to prove the social consequences of leaving the home empty. On the streets of Newcastle the social consequences of empty homes are all too evident.
	Just on Friday the Minister for Housing was talking how about how his Department is acting to free councils to tackle homelessness—acting with only one hand, it seems, while the other hand takes these important powers away. Newcastle City council has made clear its opposition to the measure, passing a resolution against it. I hope the Minister will recognise the excellent work that Newcastle’s Labour council has done in reducing the number of empty homes in the city. But will he explain why the time limit for EDMOs is being extended by 300%? Will he explain why extra requirements have been added when the Government claim to believe that local authorities are best placed to make such decisions?
	EDMOs were not being widely abused by councils. Used sensibly, in conjunction with incentives and schemes like those run by the council and its partners in Newcastle, EDMOs are an important tool for reducing empty homes and homelessness. When I raised the issue at Communities and Local Government questions in March, I was told:
	“The system for empty dwellings management orders remains in place and they can be brought into effect after two years, but there has been limited use of them so far.”—[Official Report, 12 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 11.]
	Could the Minister expand on that? Why, if he believes that there has been limited use, is he making it harder to use them? Their limited use is welcome and suggests that other measures are being used, but it does not follow from that there is no need for EDMOs or that the time limit should be extended. They are a last resort and an effective deterrent. That will no longer be so if the message goes out from Government that these orders will be much harder to implement in future.
	When I raised the issue again at Communities and Local Government questions in April, the Minister’s predecessor said:
	“It is not a very effective measure”,—[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1221.]
	but councils disagree. Can he provide evidence for that statement?
	I will not speak for too long, as I know that the Minister intends to give a considered response to each of my questions and I want to ensure that he has sufficient time to do so. I will finish by declaring a personal interest that perhaps I should have declared at the start of my speech. Social housing played a big part in my life. When my mother moved back to Newcastle in the ’60s with three small children, we spent six months living in my gran’s one-bedroom local authority bungalow before the council rehoused us in the home I grew up in. I am very grateful for that. As a family who could not afford to pay a market rent, having a safe and secure home available from the council made a huge difference and allowed us a decent start in life.
	For the moment, we cannot build enough social housing fast enough to ensure that all those who need it can be properly housed, but we can do much more to encourage the private sector to meet the need for reasonably priced housing. Indeed, getting all the known empty private sector homes in Newcastle back into use affordably could reduce the number of applications for housing by up to 85%. I hope that the Minister will set out in his reply the Government’s position on the responsibilities that come with property ownership, how he will be empowering councils to tackle the problem of empty homes in their localities, why he is changing the EDMOs and whether he will look at the particular issue of empty HMOs.

Don Foster: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on securing the debate and saying how pleased I am to see that a number of her colleagues have joined her, showing that they, too, have an interest in the matter. I very much hope that we will, as she has suggested, be able to work together on these issues. Indeed, I have now become, as she indicated I might, an assiduous reader of her website.
	I also agree about the importance of creating more affordable homes. Now is not the time to go into details, but the hon. Lady will be well aware that the coalition Government have a very robust plan in place to provide 170,000 additional affordable homes over the period of the spending review. She rightly focused on the particularly important issue of empty homes, which, as she indicated, are a waste of housing and a can be hugely damaging to neighbourhoods.
	As the hon. Lady is well aware, homes become empty for all sorts of reasons. Some are being renovated, some are in the course of probate after someone dies, and many will come back into use relatively quickly through the normal operation of the market. In fact, there are nearly 750,000 empty properties in England at any one time, but around 279,000 of them are what she and I would refer to as long-term empty, meaning that they are empty for longer than six months.
	Neglected properties, in particular, can quickly start to cause problems for neighbours, damaging adjacent properties, attracting vermin, nuisance, vandalism and other criminal activities such as drug dealing and prostitution. They can create unnecessary additional burdens on local authorities and local emergency services. They can quickly lead to an area’s decline, decimating
	the local community as well as having a wider economic impact, for example by reducing the value of neighbouring properties and discouraging future investment.
	In Newcastle upon Tyne there are currently around 1,650 long-term empty houses. We have been in dialogue with the council and know that it is working hard to tackle the problem, and we congratulate it on the work it is doing. In fact, since 2008 the council has taken action in relation to more than 1,000 empty homes, and last year alone more than 290 such properties were returned to use with help from the council. I am sure the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that the council has benefited from £62,371 from the new homes bonus for bringing those empty properties back into use.
	However, as the hon. Lady will know—she referred to this briefly—solutions to empty homes are as varied as the problems that cause them. We know that a one-size-fits-all solution will not work, so our approach is to enable local solutions which will tackle the specific local issues. That is why we have put in place the incentives and practical support to enable local communities to take the lead. In part, that will address her concern about the orders.
	The Government have already committed £160 million to bringing over 11,000 empty homes back into use, and that is being delivered through some key funding streams. Some £100 million of that sum is to bring empty homes back into use as affordable housing. That is done through two separate routes, with £70 million of funding, through the Homes and Communities Agency, for registered providers and £30 million, through the empty homes community fund, for community and voluntary groups. Another funding stream is to tackle clusters of empty homes in areas of lower demand. Some of those will be at affordable rent, but there are also mixed-tenure schemes. We have committed £60 million of funding for that.
	There is more to come. In the housing and growth package announced on 6 September, we said that we would use a share of the £300 million of capital funding and £10 billion of loan guarantees to bring a further 5,000 empty properties back into use. We will be announcing details of the programme in the very near future, and we will be looking for more innovative ideas such as encouraging more empty commercial property to be brought back into use as housing where that provides value for money.

Chi Onwurah: Will the Minister clarify whether this additional funding will be delivered through local authorities or through the private sector?

Don Foster: I know that the hon. Lady is listening carefully to what I am saying, and I said that we will be making an announcement in the very near future. She will therefore not have to wait long for the details that will answer her question.
	As well as direct funding, we have put in place powerful incentives for all local authorities to tackle empty homes, such as the new homes bonus. Local authorities earn the same financial reward for bringing an empty home back into use as building a new one—over £8,500 for a band D property. As I said, the Newcastle area has already benefited from that and other forms of direct funding. For example, I am sure that the hon. Lady is well aware that Leazes Homes, a subsidiary of Your Homes Newcastle and a registered provider, was awarded
	£160,000 to bring 10 empty homes back into use. Working with the Cyrenians, a leading local charity, it will aim to help some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people living in Newcastle by providing opportunities for them to gain new skills and qualifications. The Cyrenians have separately been awarded £500,000 from the empty homes community fund to bring up to 25 empty homes back into use across the north-east. That is part of their Homes Life project, which aims to refurbish properties working in partnership with local authorities and estate agents.
	Newcastle city council itself has been awarded £491,000 over the next two years from the clusters of empty homes fund to bring 124 empty homes back into use. The funding will be used to offer financial help to empty home owners through grants and loans towards renovation works to the empty properties. Where incentives do not work, our funding will also help to gap fund enforcement action. The local authority has committed to match the Government’s funding, taking total funding committed up to £1 million by March 2014.
	However, as the hon. Lady knows, sometimes offering advice and support of the sort that I have described is not enough. Where empty properties have become dangerous or are causing a nuisance to neighbours, and the owners will not co-operate in sorting the problems out, local authorities can make use of a range of powerful enforcement tools. As she will be aware, several of the measures in the Housing Act 2004 provide such tools. For example, part 1 enables the inspection of an empty home that is falling into disrepair, and if it is found to contain serious category 1 hazards, the local authority has a duty to take action to address them. If the property owner does not comply with an improvement notice, they will be guilty of a criminal offence that carries a fine of up to £5,000. Where there is an immediate risk, the authority can take emergency remedial action and recoup the costs.

Graham Jones: The Minister will be aware that local authorities do not have a duty to inspect properties, and do so only when there is a complaint, for instance, which in practice makes it an ineffective tool. What is the Minister going to do about that? Should there be a duty on local authorities to inspect houses for category 1 and category 2 hazards, or will we remain with the current system that does not achieve what it promises?

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point to which—let me be honest—I have not previously given any thought. Now that the point has been raised, I assure him that I will consider it and write to him subsequently.
	As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central has said, there are a number of other measures, including empty dwelling management orders. I do not want to go into great deal about those because I think that she and I might sit down and have a lengthier dialogue about some of the issues she has raised. However, since the introduction of those orders several years ago, only 69 have been issued. She will be aware that, in her local authority area in Newcastle, not one EDMO was issued until last month when the first one was proposed.

Graham Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Don Foster: I will, but we need to make progress.

Graham Jones: Again, I ask the Minister to look into this issue, but I think the reason few orders were issued is because the properties involved often required £30,000 or £40,000 to be spent. Under the old legislation, that had to be recovered in the seven years of the EDMO. Councils could not afford to lay out capital investment upfront, and they had no expectation of recovery, especially in cluster areas where there was no market demand for the properties involved.

Don Foster: On this occasion I do not need to go away and think about the hon. Gentleman’s point, and if he was listening to my earlier comments, I mentioned a number of funding streams that we have made available to ensure opportunities for the provision of support to bring properties back into use more quickly. One reason we changed the arrangements from six months to two years, as the hon. Lady said, is because we believe that provides the right balance between enforcement and the opportunity to work with owners and the available funding to bring properties back into use, without ultimately using the serious sanction of the order.
	Time is short and I want to pick up on a couple of points raised by the hon. Lady. She raised the issue of houses in multiple occupation, and suggested that, in certain circumstances, people have received planning permission to convert a property—largely such properties have three or more storeys and five or more people—into an HMO. At times, however, that property is no longer used for multiple occupation and could be used for a family, but that does not happen because people are afraid of losing the planning permission if they subsequently wish to convert the house back into an HMO. I have had a very brief conversation with officials about that situation, but I clearly need to have more detailed conversations. That might not be the problem that the hon. Lady describes, but I give her an undertaking to look at the issue. If necessary, we will have further dialogue, but I certainly commit to writing to her.
	We believe that article 4 directions and licensing are a powerful tool. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that article 4 directions and licensing can be used either for an area or for parts of it. The important point is that local councils have the opportunity to make the decisions that best suit their circumstances.

Graham Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to make the point. The Minister’s assessment is right but, putting aside many other problems with licensing, there are no qualitative standards in licensing. It is about low demand and antisocial behaviour. It is not about individual properties, but about a neighbourhood. It therefore does not tackle the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) has described.

Don Foster: Another point to which it is worth drawing the House’s attention is on the valuable work of a number of housing associations that work to address a wide range of problems—they do not just let and manage properties.
	The behaviour of letting agents was touched on. There are procedures to bring concerns about the behaviour of letting agents to the attention of relevant bodies within local authorities, but I recommend that people ensure they go with an agency that is in a safe letting scheme.
	I thank the hon. Lady for introducing this important debate. As I said, I will continue to work with her. I share her passion for getting empty properties back
	into use. That will provide much needed additional houses, but it can also remove the blight on communities that, sadly, currently exists. I congratulate her on securing this debate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.